Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is an application under Sec. 482 or the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to set aside and quash the order dated 29.2.1996 recorded by learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger affirming the order of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhisarai dated 18.10.1994 under which the learned Magistrate had directed the petitioners and O.P. No. 2 to furnish written statements in a proceeding under Sec. 147 of the Cr.P.C. 3. It may be mentioned that though O.P. No. 2 has appeared through Counsel and has also filed counter-affidavit, but in course of hearing none was present to represent O.P. No. 2 hence the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State were heard. 4. The grounds placed before me is that for the same land title suit No. 80/94 is pending in a Civil Court at Munger between the same parties in which the petitioners are plaintiffs and O.P. 2nd party is the defendant. The pendency of the title suit has been mentioned in this petition also and has also been admitted in para-5(I) of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of O.P. 2nd party. Learned Counsel submits that since title suit is pending, in which ad-interim injunction has also been granted and is in force, a parallel proceeding in a criminal Court cannot be continued. 5. When a civil suit is pending in a competent Civil Court, the parties to the suit can seek their relief/reliefs from that Court, hence there cannot be a parallel proceeding in a criminal Court, which is also necessary in order to avoid conflicting orders. Even in such a case the order passed by the Civil Court would prevail. 6. Since a civil suit between the same parties in the same matter is pending before the Civil Court the criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to continue. 7. From perusal of impugned order in criminal revision No. 413/1994 it appears that, this point was raised before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge also but it appears that learned Addl. Sessions Judge was disinclined to quash the proceeding on the ground that pendency of civil suit would show that ill-feeling was prevailing between the parties, hence the apprehension of breach of peace could not be ruled out. Sessions Judge also but it appears that learned Addl. Sessions Judge was disinclined to quash the proceeding on the ground that pendency of civil suit would show that ill-feeling was prevailing between the parties, hence the apprehension of breach of peace could not be ruled out. However, since the parties can have their relief/reliefs in the Civil Court where the civil suit is pending, the ground mentioned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the impugned order will hardly carry weight. 8. In view of the aforesaid position, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the proceeding under Sec. 147 of the Cr.P.C. is quashed, but without cost.