JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, district Jaipur, dated 16.11.2000 and order dated 23.9.2000 passed by S.D.M. Kotputli. 2. The facts in brief are that the S.H.O. Police Station Shahpura, filed a complaint in the Court of learned A.C.M. Shahpura under section 145 Cr. P.C. with the averments that agricultural land of Khasra Nos. 402/64 and 403/64, measuring 1.28 Hectare, situated in village Chatarpura, is in the name of Surgyan and others who are sons of Jwala Prasad in revenue record. On partition of this land after the death of Jawala Prasad, this land came to the share of Surgyan Party No. 1 in this complaint. Thereafter on 15.6.1996 Surgyan lodged a written report against Ram Swaroop Singh, Party No.2 and others under sections 147,447,323,354 IPC and during investigation of that case. Ram Swaroop submitted one agreement. As per this agreement, Surgyan agreed to sale this land to Ram Swaroop Singh. According to this complaint, both the parties claim this land and on account of dispute over this land, there is every likelihood of the breach of peace. Therefore, the land may be taken in possession to maintain peace. 3. Learned A.C.M. passed the order on 2.10.1996, under section 145(1) Cr. P.C. and issued notice to both the parties on 22.10.1996. Thereafter the learned A.C.M. vide order dated 18.5.1999, decided that he has no jurisdiction to hear this matter as it is within the jurisdiction of S.D.M. Kotputli, hence the case was transferred to S.D.M. Kotputli. Learned S.D.M.. Kotputli. vide order dated 23.9.2000 came to the conclusion that there is dispute regarding possession of the land between the parties and any serious incident may take place and it appears a matter of emergency, therefore, this land was attached as provided by section 146( 1) Cr. P.C. and Tehsildar, Viratnagar was appointed as Receiver. This order was challenged in revision by the petitioner Ramswaroop Singh. The Criminal Revision No.25/2000 was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, vide order dated 16.11.2000. Hence this petition. 4. Notice on Non-Petitioner No.2 was served but none appeared on his behalf. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred Annexure 3, an agreement dated 28.8.1994, by which the Non-Petitioner No.2 Surgyan agreed to sell his share in this agricultural land for Rs. Hence this petition. 4. Notice on Non-Petitioner No.2 was served but none appeared on his behalf. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred Annexure 3, an agreement dated 28.8.1994, by which the Non-Petitioner No.2 Surgyan agreed to sell his share in this agricultural land for Rs. 2,20,500/- to petitioner Ramswaroop Singh and he received a sum of Rs.21,000/- and handed-over the possession of the land to the petitioner. He next referred that Smt. Sita Devi, wife of Non-Petitioner No.2 lodged a written report with Police Station Shahpura on 15.9.1996, against the petitioner and others for committing trespass in this agricultural land for offence under Sections 147,447,354,323 IPC and after investigation final report Annexure I was submitted. He next referred Annexure A1, order dated 23.9.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, accepting this F.R. He also referred the report of Patwari dated 4.7.1996, which is Annexure 4. This report was submitted to S.H.O. Viratnagar and according to this report this land was found in possession of the petitioner Ramswaroop Singh, he next referred Annexure 8, a copy of the plaint filed by the petitioner Ramswaroop against the non-petitioner Surgyan and others for specific performance of the contract of the disputed land and in para 3 of the plaint, this land has been pleaded to be in possession of the petitioner. Thus according to the learned counsel for the petitioner there was overwhelming evidence to show prima facie the possession of the petitioner and in that case the order of attachment and appointment of the Receiver is bad in law. He placed reliance on Ramsura Singhpuri v. State of U.P. AIR 1985 S.C. 472 , , wherein it was held that when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under section 145 of the Code, would not be justified. This judgment is not strictly applicable to the facts of the present case as a civil litigation is still pending and point of possession has not been adjudicated so far. But as stated here-m-above prima facie possession of the disputed land lies with the petitioner. This judgment is not strictly applicable to the facts of the present case as a civil litigation is still pending and point of possession has not been adjudicated so far. But as stated here-m-above prima facie possession of the disputed land lies with the petitioner. It was next argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that agreement is dated 28.8.1994, thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioners and others on 15.6.1996, making allegations of committing tress pass in this land and the complaint under section 145 Cr. P.C. was filed on 22.9.1996 and the impugned order of the learned S.D.M. is dated 23.9.2000, thus this order was passed about four years after filing of the complaint under section 145 Cr. P.C. and no untoward incident took place between the parties during this period and thus there was no material before the learned S.D.M. to come to this conclusion that the case is one of emergency or none of the parties was in possession of subject to dispute and. therefore, the order of learned S.D.M. passed under section 146(1) Cr. P.C. is bad in law. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1999 (2) R.C.C. 1340, , wherein it was held by this Court that since any of the conditions specified in Section 146( 1) Cr. P.C. does not exist and record does not disclose any emergency the order of attachment and appointment of receiver can not be sustained. Similar view was taken by Hon. Supreme Court in Mathuralal v. Bhanwar Lal and another, AIR 1980 S.C. 242 , , wherein it has been held that in a case of emergency, a Magistrate may attach the property, at any time after making the preliminary order under Section I45( 1) of Cr. P.C. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order but in view of the above discussion it is clear that the order of attachment and appointment of Receiver has been passed without proper application of mind. On perusal of the entire facts, no emergency existed so as to draw an apprehension of breach of peace. 5. Consequently this petition is allowed. The order of learned S.D.M. Kotputli dated 23.9.2000 and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura dated 16.11.2000 are set-aside.Petition allowed. *******