JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The land bearing Khasra No. 918 admeasuring 57 beghas and 2 bisvas situated at village Bhainswa is admittedly of the joint tenancy of three brother namely Srinarain, non- petitioner No.2, Kajod, non-petitioner No. 3 and one Suraj. Kajod appears to have transferred his rights in the joint property to Gopiram. petitioner, by registered sale deed dated 10.7.91. Some dispute over the possession of the transferred land appears to have arisen between the parties whereupon litigations before the Revenue and Civil Courts commenced. Gopi Ram, petitioner, filed a suit for injunction in the Revenue Court but his prayer for issue of an interim injunction in such suit was not accepted and the application was dismissed in 15.7.91. Srinarain, non- petitioner No.2. appears to have challenged the very execution of the sale deed by Kajod in favour of the Gopi Ram before a civil court and prayed for an interim injunction therein. Such application appears to have been dismissed by the trial court whereupon S.B.Cr.Misc. Appeal No. 277/92 was filed before this court and on 20.5.92 this court passed the following order: " jsLiksUMsUV dks uksfVl tkjh gksA vfxze vkns'k rd [kljk ua0 918 dh fookfnr Hkwfe tks vihykUV ds dCts esa gS mlls mUgs csn[ky ugha fd;k tkosA " 3. It was in this backdrop that the learned Executive Magistrate initiated proceed Under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. in respect to the subject matter of the present litigation on the basis of an information dated 1.7.92, received from S.H.O.. P/s. Jobner. By a subsequent order passed Under section 146(1) Cr.PC. on 2.7.92 the learned Magistrate attached the property in question on the ground of emergency. Such order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by Srinarain before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambher Lake, but vide her impugned order dated 2.9.96 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that since the property in question was the joint property of three brothers and as stated on behalf of the State there was no likelihood of any breach of peace in the matter, there was no justification in permitting the continuance of these proceedings. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate giving rise to this petition Under section 397/401 Cr.RC. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate giving rise to this petition Under section 397/401 Cr.RC. 4. Relying on Supreme Court's decision in the case of Prakash Chand Sachdeva v. State & Anr., (1994 Cr.L. 2117) and Allahabad High Court's decision in the case of Sachidanand Misra v. State of U.P., (1987 Cr.L.J. 1366) it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that proceedings Under section 145 Cr.RC. may be initiated and continued in respect to disputes regarding possession between co-owners. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has urged that filing of the present proceedings, after taking cognizance of the matter by the Revenue and Civil Courts and passing appropriate orders by them, simply amounts to plurality of same proceedings and such plurality amounts to abuse of the process of the court and, therefore, the Magistrates order invalid in law. 5. In the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., ( AIR 1985 SC 472 ) the Apex Court had ruled that multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. Duality of such proceedings simply amounts to abuse of the process of the court and such abuse should not be allowed to continue. This proposition was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Chand Sachdeva (supra). In the present petition the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has directed the termination of the proceedings on the dual ground of cession of apprehension of breach of peace as also existence of dual proceedings regarding the same subject matter before the Revenue and Civil Courts. Since on the face of it. the parties had already approached the Revenue and Civil Courts to get their rights in respect to the disputed subject matter settled by the Revenue and Civil Courts, there was no purpose of initiating the proceedings Under section 145 Cr.PC. as the proceedings under those provisions are purely of summary nature and their purpose in the end is to direct the parties to go to the Civil/Revenue Courts for settlement of their rights, in case the right to possession is not determined by the criminal court. as the proceedings under those provisions are purely of summary nature and their purpose in the end is to direct the parties to go to the Civil/Revenue Courts for settlement of their rights, in case the right to possession is not determined by the criminal court. Even if there remains apprehension of breach of peace in respect of the subject matter of dispute despite the parties having gone before the Revenue or Civil Courts, the proper course to be adopted may be by way of taking proceedings Under section 107/116 Cr.RC. and not by initiating proceedings Under section 145 Cr.PC. 6. In the present case the right to possession by the petitioner of the share in the land, alleged to have been purchased by him from Kajod. was in dispute In the case cited no such right to possession was involved and the parties had approached the criminal court to prove their possession over a particular piece of land. The facts in the case of Prakash Chand Sachdeva (supra) are thus distinguishable from those obtaining in the present case. Since the learned Sessions Judge, on the statement made before him at bar on behalf of the State, has thought it proper to terminate the present proceedings and also because duality of proceedings amounted to loss of money of the parties and time of the court, the impugned order is valid in law. No abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of justice is involved in the present order, instead the continuation of such proceedings before this court do amount to abuse of the process of the court 7. I thus find no force in this petition, it is accordingly dismissed.> Petition dismissed. *******