K. N. OJHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi and Smt. Archana Tyagi the learned counsel for the revisionists the learned AGA for the State and Sri Kameshwar Singh, the learned counsel for the O. P. No. 2. ( 2 ) INSTANT revision has been preferred against order dated 21/12/2000 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge. Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 334 of 2000. Krishna Pal v. Ippan and others whereby the revision was allowed and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shamli district Muzaffar Nagar, dated 25/10/2000 passed in proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was set aside. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to prosecution Case No. 47 of 2000. Ippan and others v. Krishna Pal and others under Section 145 Cr. P. C. village Sota, police station Babri, district Muzaffar Nagar, proceeded in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Shamli. The Sub Divisional Magistrate perused the report dated 25/9/2000 submitted by the Station Officer, police station Babri and the report of the Tehsildar Shamli dated 23/10/2000 and arrived at the conclusion that there was possibility of breach of peace between the parties in respect of Gata No. 909 area 15-9-15 situate in village Sota, therefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the parties to appear in his court on 18/11/2000 to file written statement and evidence in support of their respective cases. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED there from Krishna Pal, who is the opposite party No. 2 in this revision preferred revision No. 334 of 2000 under Section 397 Cr. P. C. which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar on 21/12/2000. During the pendency of the revision Ippan and others moved an application in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, that civil litigation in respect of cancellation of deed was pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division ). Muzaffar Nagar, in respect of the same land, which was later on withdrawn. A prayer was also made by Ippan and others that their millet crop was standing on the land and the opposite party Krishna Pal be restrained from forcibly cutting away the crop. A report was called for from the Tehsildar, Shamli. He submitted his report on 23/10/2000 in which he submitted that the revisionist Sanjeev and others had purchased 1/4th share of the land. Opposite party Krishna Pal was the brother of the seller. A report was called for from the Tehsildar, Shamli. He submitted his report on 23/10/2000 in which he submitted that the revisionist Sanjeev and others had purchased 1/4th share of the land. Opposite party Krishna Pal was the brother of the seller. A case was contested between the purchasers and the brother of Krishna Pal in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kairana, which was decided in favour of purchaser Sanjeev Kumar. The Tehsildar reported that the opposite party Krishna Pal forcibly wanted to cut away the crop, therefore, there was apprehension of breach of peace. Considering the circumstances and the evidence of the parties the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order of attachment of the disputed property under Section 146 Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) IPPAN and others placed reliance on Laxmikant Dabey v. Jamunt and others, in which it is held by this court that where civil litigation is pending in respect of a property, the proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. in respect of the same property is not maintainable in the court of the Magistrate. Krishna Pal bad filed a civil suit in Civil Court but he had withdrawal it as consolidation came in the village, therefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate again started proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that where a case is pending in the civil court or in the consolidation court before the matter of title is to be decided in a competent court of law, the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was not maintainable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also relied on Jayanti Prasad v. Kamal Naratn, in which it was held that there was a dispute of the property amongst the cotenure holders. The proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was not maintainable because a cotenure holder is entitled for joint possession over each inch of the land. Consequently the revision was allowed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the proceeding under Section 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr. P. C. pending in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Aggrieved there from Ippan and others have preferred this revision. Consequently the revision was allowed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the proceeding under Section 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr. P. C. pending in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Aggrieved there from Ippan and others have preferred this revision. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has cited Sita Ram and others v. Guru Dutt and others, in which this Court has held that if civil suit is pending in respect of disputed property and order of maintaining status quo was passed and there is no clear cut finding of the civil court, proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. is maintainable in the court of the Magistrate. ( 7 ) ANOTHER ruling cited is Rajendra Pratap Singh v. The District and Sessions Judge. Gonda, in which it was held by this court that if the matter is pending before the consolidation authorities in respect of a property relating to which there is apprehension of breach of peace, the Magistrate was bound to decide the controversy. ( 8 ) LIKEWISE Gulam Farid and others v. State of Rajasthan and other, was also relied by the revisionist in which the High Court of Rajasthan held that when civil suit was pending and application for interim injunction was rejected, it did not deprive the learned Magistrate of his jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) JASWANT Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others was relied upon by the revisionist in which it was held by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that when there is a dispute as to possession of land during pendency of some civil suit between the same parties and the question of possession has not been adjudicated, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was not ousted. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has laid emphasis on Mahant Ram Saran Dass v. Harish Mohan and another, in which Honble the Supreme Court held that when the court had passed interim order of injunction in the civil suit itself and put certain restrictions on the parties with regard to the alienation of the property the civil court being in session of the matter, any appropriate relief could be obtained from the civil court itself and the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 145 Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) DEONATH Ram v. State of U. P. and others was relied upon by the respondent in which it was held by this court that some plots were in dispute preliminary order was passed under Section 145 and 397 Cr. P. C. and the matter was pending in the civil court, it was held that since the controversy was to be decided by the civil court the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. deserves to quashed. ( 12 ) JAYANTI Prasad v. Kamal Narain (supra) was further relied upon by the respondent in this case. It was held by this Court that if civil litigation was pending between the co-sharer and mutual partition was not established the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. cannot be initiated because it is settled that when there are civil litigation between the parties and mutual partition is not established then the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. cannot be initiated. The possession of all co-sharers has to be on each inch of joint land. Thus it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that between the parties who are co-sharers the matter in respect of the same land is pending in the civil court and in the consolidation court, hence instant revision is not maintainable. ( 13 ) THE case of the opposite party is that the father of the opposite party No. 2 had executed a will on 25/5/1992 in favour of his three sons Phool Chand, Tirath Ram and Krishna Pal, but he had not executed any will in favour of his fourth son Sudama. After the death of the opposite party no. 2 the names of all four sons were mutated over Gata no. 909 while the case of mutation was pending before the consolidation officer. The Consolidation Officer, Muzaffar Nagar decided the case on 25/4/1997 and accepted the execution of the will deed dated 25/5/1993 and mutated the names of three sons of Kawal Singh in his place. In the meantime on 19/2/1997 Sudama son of Kawal Singh made a sale deed of his 1/4th share in favour of the revisionist and also moved an application before the Tehsildar for mutation The application was rejected. Therefore the revisionist filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In the meantime on 19/2/1997 Sudama son of Kawal Singh made a sale deed of his 1/4th share in favour of the revisionist and also moved an application before the Tehsildar for mutation The application was rejected. Therefore the revisionist filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Muzaffar Nagar, against the order dated 19/4/1999, which was pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Muzaffar Nagar. and 2/2/2000 was fixed for hearing. Thereafter the revisionist moved an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shamli, for initiation of proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. but the proceeding was dropped by the Sub the Divisional Magistrate in compliance of the order passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. Seven months after on 4/9/2000 again the revisionist moved an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Shamli, Muzaffar Nagar, under Section 145 Cr. P. C. then the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 25/10/2000 for attachment of the property in dispute under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. but the order was set aside by the III Additional Sessions Judge in revision on 21/12/2000. The revisionist claimed possession over the land through the sale deed executed by Sudama. brother of the opposite party No. 2 Krishna Pal. According the respondent when the will deed was accepted, Sudama had got no share in the property and decision was given accordingly by the consolidation courts. ( 14 ) RULINGS have been cited by both the parties. But in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court reported in Mahant Ram Saran Dass v. Harish Mohan and another. (supra) the position of law is clear that if civil suit is already pending and the competent court is seized of the matter, any appropriate relief be obtained from that Court and no proceeding under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. could be initiated by the Magistrate. ( 15 ) IT would be significant to add that if the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. are already pending because there is apprehension of breach of peace between the parties, mere filing of civil suit will not take away the right of proceeding under Sections 145, and 146 Cr. P. C. because if it is permitted so, any party having no hope of success under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. are already pending because there is apprehension of breach of peace between the parties, mere filing of civil suit will not take away the right of proceeding under Sections 145, and 146 Cr. P. C. because if it is permitted so, any party having no hope of success under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. will file civil suit under the provisions of the C. P. C. so that the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. may be dropped. The, proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. are started because there remains a dispute about the possession of the property and if the matter of possession of property is dealt with by the court the breach of peace is avoided. Even attachment of a property can be made under Section 146 Cr. P. C. but the moment attachment is made by any other competent Court to decide the rights of the parties, the attachment made by the Magistrate under Section 146 Cr. P. C. comes to an end. It means the Magistrate has duty to maintain law and order so that breach of peace may not be committed. If a civil suit In respect of the same property is pending or if a case is pending in a consolidation court where the rights of the parties are to be decided for years together order of status quo continues and no specific order about the possession is passed on any application for interim relief or by finally disposing off the case leaving the parties in the same effort of claiming their own possession and keeping the peace in danger the Sub Divisional Magistrate can exercise the rights which is vested in him under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. In this case the matter was decided by the Nayab Tehslldar for mutation and it was pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation therefore it was open to the parties to seek remedy before the Consolidation Court. ( 16 ) HENCE the III Additional Sessions Judge. Muzaffar Nagar rightly held that the proceedings under Sections 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr. P. C. were not maintainable and the case under these sections was dropped. There is no jurisdictional error illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by passing the impugned order dated 21/12/2000. The revision is dismissed. Muzaffar Nagar rightly held that the proceedings under Sections 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr. P. C. were not maintainable and the case under these sections was dropped. There is no jurisdictional error illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by passing the impugned order dated 21/12/2000. The revision is dismissed. The stay order, if any stands vacated. Revision dismissed. .