JUDGMENT 1. - The revision petition has been directed against the order dated 24.9.91 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Merta whereby he directed the attachment of the land and the cabin and appointment of receiver thereon. 2. Mr. Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor contends that revision against the order passed by the Executive Magistrate should have been preferred before the Sessions Judge and as the petitioner has by-passed the court of Sessions, the revision petition should be dismissed. 3. There is no substance in this contention. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers revisional powers to examine the correctness and validity of the order passed by the inferior courts. This power has been given to the High Court as well as to the Court of Sessions. The powers of the Court of Sessions and those of High Court are thus concurrent. It is true that this has been the practice of this Court to insist the petitioner to first approach the court of Sessions for redressal of his grievance but nothing the fact that the revision petition is pending since 1991, justice demands that the revision petition is decided by this Court on merits. 4. It is not necessary to mention the facts of the case in detail as there is development subsequent to the order sought to be revised. Suffice it to say, there is a place known as 'Kesariya Kanwarji' field in Village-Riyabari. Manjur Khan had established two cabins there. A report was made by the S.H.O. before the Magistrate stating that Hindus collect at the field on the 'Gogaji' fair and there is tension between Hindus and Muslims because of the cabins of Manjur Khan. On this report, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were started and impugned order was passed on 24.9.95. 5. Mr. Choudhary contends that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, the Civil Judge has decided the civil suit, the suit of Manjur Khan has been decreed and the Grampanchayat Riyabari has been restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor also does not dispute that the civil suit which was pending at the time of passing of impugned order has been decided. His contention is that this land is different than the subject matter of the civil suit. 7. A copy of the judgment dated 26.10.96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Merta has been placed on record. His contention is that this land is different than the subject matter of the civil suit. 7. A copy of the judgment dated 26.10.96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Merta has been placed on record. The matter was not contested by the Gram Panchayat and hence ex-parte decree was passed in favour of the petitioner. It has been held in that case that the land in dispute has been in possession of the petitioner for the last about 30-40 years. 8. It is settled legal position that when in a civil litigation the question of possession of the property is adjudicated, there is no justification for continuing criminal proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. : Vide Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., Cr.L.R. (SC) 1985 1 , Bajrang Das Swami v. State of Raj., RLR 1996(1) 22 , Shivdan Singh v. State of Raj., RLW 1997(2) WLC (Raj.) 592 and Smt. Kulwant Kaur v. State of Raj. RLR 1990(1) 769 . 9. In the instant case, the matter has been finally adjudicated by the civil court. When the civil court has determined the rights of the parties the proceedings under Section 146 Cr.P.C. do not survive. So also the order of appointment of receiver passed by the learned Executive Magistrate. There is no substance in this contention that the subject matter of the civil suit was different. Even in the impugned order there is a mention of the order passed on the application for temporary injunction. It is obvious that the land involved in the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. is the same. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted and the order impugned is quashed.Revision Allowed-Impugned Order Quashed. *******