JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal misc. petition, the petitioners seek quashing of proceedings in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4/2000 pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaitaran (for short 'the Executive Magistrate'). 2. Non-petitioner no. 2 Gopu filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaitaran under sections 145 and 146 Cr.PC. against the petitioners. It was alleged that agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 205 situated in village Giri measuring 2 bighas was purchased by .non-petitioner no. 2 from petitioner no. 8 Jhamku widow of Bhola Ram in Samvat Year 2031 and since then, he is in cultivatory possession of the said land. It was alleged that the petitioners were trying to dispossess non-petitioner no. 2 from the land in question. It was also alleged that there is likelihood of breach of peace on account of the dispute of possession of the said land. The Executive Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to S.H.O., Police Station, Sendara, who after investigation, submitted a report on 9.7.2000. On the report, the Executive Magistrate initiated proceedings under section 145 Cr.PC. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the whole proceeding initiated by the Executive Magistrate under sections 145 and 146 Cr.PC. is without jurisdiction. It is contended that the Execrative Magistrate assumed jurisdiction only when condition/situation envisaged under sub-section (1) of section 145 Cr.PC. exists. Section 145(1) CLPC. provides that when an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his focal jurisdiction. The learned Executive Magistrate initiated the proceedings vide order dated 13.7.2000. The order dated 13.7.2000 reads as under: " lk;y e; odhy mifLFkrA lk;y us izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr /kkjk 145&146 lh0vkj0ih0lh0 ds rgr izkFkZuk&i= is'k fd;kA ftldk geus voyksdu fd;kA izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 145 lh0vkj0ih0lh0 ds ntZ jftLVj gksA xSj lk;y tfj;s uksfVl ryc gksA i=koyh okLrs tokc gsrq fnukad 26-7-2000 dks is'k gksA " 5. It is obvious from the order of 13.7.2000 that the learned Magistrate has not recorded subjective satisfaction regarding the dispute likely to cause breach of peace. It is obvious from the order of 13.7.2000 that the learned Magistrate has not recorded subjective satisfaction regarding the dispute likely to cause breach of peace. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that when the Executive Magistrate passed preliminary order initiating proceedings under sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., there existed any breach of peace arising out of dispute concerning any land and, therefore, without satisfying that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace, the learned Executive Magistrate assumes no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under sections 145 and 146 Cr.PC. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the preliminary order dated 13.7.2000 and further proceeding taken thereunder is without jurisdiction. 6. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners filed a revenue suit in the Court of Assistant District Magistrate, Jaitaran against the non-petitioners and others for permanent injunction under sections 188 and 92-A of the Rajasthan tenancy Act (for short 'the Act'). Along with the revenue suit under sections 188 and 92-A of the Act, the petitioners filed an application under section 212 of the Act read with Outer 39 Rules 1 & 2 and section 151 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction against the non-petitioners and others. The learned revenue court i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaitaran by order dated 5.2.1997 allowed the application for temporary injunction and non-petitioner no. 2 and others were restrained to interfere with the possession of the land in dispute of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that since the matter is seized by the revenue court and under these circumstances, parallel proceedings under sections 145 and 146 Cr.RC. are not maintainable. He has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Purl Mahant v. State of U.P. and others, 1985 (1) SCC 427 . In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil Court is binding on the criminal Court in a matter like the one before us. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil Court is binding on the criminal Court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil Court, the criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the CMI Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for interim order such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue." 7. The learned counsel for non-petitioner no. 2 did not dispute the filing of a revenue suit as also grant of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners. 8. In my considered opinion, without there being subjective satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate regarding a dispute likely to cause a brach of peace of concerning any land, proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated. In the instant case, the learned Executive Magistrate nowhere formed the opinion or reached to the conclusion that the dispute exists with regard to land in question, which is likely to cause breach of peace. Unless and until the Executive Magistrate reaches to this conclusion, he does not assume jurisdiction to proceed under sections 145 & 146 Cr.PC. The entire proceedings must go on this count alone. However, it is also nut disputed that the parties are before the revenue court and a revenue suit is pending and the order of injunction his been passed In favour of the petitioners. Under these circumstances, initiation of parallel criminal proceedings under sections 145 and 146 Cr.RC. would amount to abuse of process of Court. In this view of the matter, during the pendency of the revenue litigation, parallel proceedings under sections 145 and 146 Cr.RC. should not continue. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaitaran, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4/2000 are hereby set aside and quashed.Revision Allowed. *******