JUDGMENT 1. -Having felt satisfied with the report of the SHO, P/s Kotwali, Sikar that a dispute concerning agricultural land had arisen between the parties and such dispute was likely to commit the breach of public peace by them, the learned Magistrate initiated proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. in the present case. An application under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Executive Magistrate by Abdul Gani and others, the present petitioners, praying that the property in question be attached and a receiver thereupon be appointed during the pendency of the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. By his order dated 23.7.1998 the learned Executive Magistrate. Sikar, attached the case property and appointee) Tehsildar. Sikar, as receiver of the land. The orders, so passed by the learned Executive Magistrate fuss. 145 & 146(1) Cr.P.C., wee challenged before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar. It was, inter edict, urged before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that since the parties were already litigating before the revenue Court for adjudication of their rights to the property in suit, proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. were inappropriate and attachment of the suit property and appointment of receiver therefor was not in tune with the provisions no Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. and well settled position of law. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepted such contention of the respondents and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate as made by him under sections 145 & 146(1) Cr.P.c. Hence, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. At the very outset it was pointed out that the impugned order was revisable and, therefore, a petition under section 397 Cr.P.C. would lie. The present petition is directed to be treated as an application under section 397 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the orders passed by the learned Executive Magistrate were interlocutory orders and no revision lay against such orders. It was submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has erred in law in exercising his/her powers under section 397 Cr.P.C. in respect to the interlocutory orders. The objections raised by the learned counsel is not correct. 4. In the case of Abu Lal & Am. It was submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has erred in law in exercising his/her powers under section 397 Cr.P.C. in respect to the interlocutory orders. The objections raised by the learned counsel is not correct. 4. In the case of Abu Lal & Am. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1999 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 542 this Court has taken the view that the orders passed by the Magistrate under section 146 Cr.P.C. for appointment of a receiver after attaching the property is a final order and is amenable to revision. I fully agree with the proposition laid down in that case. I, therefore, find no force in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by order of the Dy. Collector, Sikar, dated 18.2.1981 it was quite evident that the dispute between the parties relates to mutation and that the petitioners were and had been in continuous possession of the land in question since long but since the respondents were bent upon selling the suit land in pieces and their activities had given rise to apprehension of breach of peace, the initiation of proceedings under section 145/146 Cr.P.C. by the learned Executive Magistrate was justified. On the other hand it was submitted that the parties had been litigating before the revenue Court for adjudication of their rights to the suit property since 1980 and that the suit was ripe for final arguments. Therefore, the Executive Magistrate should not have initiated the proceedings under section 145/146 Cr.P.C. in the present case. In this behalf reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Konya Sal & Ors. v. Prahlad & Ors., 1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 119 . 6. Therefore, the Executive Magistrate should not have initiated the proceedings under section 145/146 Cr.P.C. in the present case. In this behalf reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Konya Sal & Ors. v. Prahlad & Ors., 1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 119 . 6. In the case of Kanva Bar (supra) this Court had examined the issue in sufficient details and in para 10 of the report observed as tinder:- " bl U;k;ky; }kjk vusd ekeyksa esa ;gh er O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd tgka fooknxzLr lEifRr ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ i{kdkj ln~HkkoukiwoZd l{ke U;k;ky; ds le{k vius vf/kdkjksa ds fu.kZ; ds fy;s igqapk pqdk gks vkSj U;k;ky; lEifRr dh lqj{kk ds lEcU/k esa mfpr o vko';d vkns'k ikfjr djus esa l{ke gks rks vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh ugha dh tkuh pkfg;sA ;fn i{kdkjksa ds chp yksd 'kkfUr Hkax djus dh fLFkfr cuk;h tkrh gSA rks ,slh vka'kdk ls i{kdkjksa ds fo:) /kkjk 107] 116 n0iz0la0 lifBr /kkjk 151 n0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr dh tk ldrh gS bl lEcU/k esa 1996 ( 1 ) vkj0,y0vkj0 22] 1996 ( 1 ) vkj0,y0vkj0 716] 1996 ( 1 ) vkj0,y0MCY;q0 413] 1997 MCY;q0,y0lh0 215 okys fu.kZ;ksa dh vkSj ladsr fd;k tk ldrk gSA blh lEcU/k esa VhdwM+k cuke LVsV] 1961 vkj0,y0MCY;q0 569 rFkk loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; jkelqesj iqjh cuke LVsV vkWQ ;w0ih0] ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1985 lqizhe dksVZ 472 dh vksj ladsr fd;k tk ldrk gSA " 7. In the light of the observations made above in the case of Kanya Hal (supra) it is well settled in law that where the parties have already approached the competent Court for adjudication of their rights to the subject-matter of dispute between them and such competent Court is seized of the matter and can pass appropriate interim orders in respect thereto regarding appointment of receiver etc., the Magistrate should not initiate proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. If there is apprehension of breach of peace between the parties in respect to the dispute over the immovable property between them, proceedings under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. may be initiated. 8. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the parties were litigating for adjudication of their rights and title to the property in suit much before the initiation of the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. The competent Court has already completed the proceedings of the suit before it, as stated at bar before me. 8. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the parties were litigating for adjudication of their rights and title to the property in suit much before the initiation of the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. The competent Court has already completed the proceedings of the suit before it, as stated at bar before me. Under such circumstances, the initiation of proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. and attachment of the property and appointment of a receiver thereto under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. were not justified. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in quashing the proceedings, initiated by the learned Executive Magistrate in the present case. I thus find no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. 9. In view of the above, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******