JUDGMENT 1. - Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that S.H.O. Police Station, Harmada, filed a complaint u/s. 145 Cr..C. on 7.11.2000, against 23 persons (divided in seven parties) in the Court of learned S.D.M. Amer, District Jaipur, with the averments that all 23 persons are members of one family and they are joint khatedars of disputed land comprising of new Khasra No. 349. On account of short-fall in the water-level in some parts of this land, disputes arose between them and they want to take possession of the land which is in possession of each other and three criminal cases in the year 2000 were registered with regard to disputes over this land and there is likelihood of breach of peace. Therefore, total disputed land 28.96 hectares of Khasra No. 349 should be taken into possession by appointing the Receiver. 2. Learned S.D.M., on the same day passed an order u/s. 145 Cr.P.C. and by making this observation that there is likelihood of the breach of the peace, the land,in question was attached and the S.H.O. Harmada was appointed Receiver over the disputed agricultural land. 3. Two Criminal Revisions No. 37/2000 and 49/2001 were preferred against this order. Both the revisions were decided vide common order dated 15.4.2002. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, allowed both the revisions and set aside the impugned order, hence this revision by the petitioners of Party Nos. 4, 3 & 2. 4. Notices were issued to all the respondents. Respondent No. 7 (Party No. 6) & respondent Nos. 10 to 16 (Party No. 7), appeared through their counsel Shri M.M. Mehrishi and the remaining respondents did not appear after service. Learned Public Prosecutor is present for the State of Rajasthan. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in two criminal revisions filed against the impugned order, the petitioners were not made parties in Cr. Learned Public Prosecutor is present for the State of Rajasthan. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in two criminal revisions filed against the impugned order, the petitioners were not made parties in Cr. Revision No. 37/2000; that the prayer in second revision No. 49/2001 was confined only to agricultural land comprising 2.38 hectare, while the learned revisional Court set aside the order of S.D.M. in toto; that the family partition of the disputed land had already taken place and parties were in possession of their respective shares and thus they were not in joint possession; that revenue suits were filed for partition on account of joint khatedari; that annexure 4 order dated 10.11.2000, for maintaining status quo was passed by Assistant Collector and even thereafter the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 16 before this Court tried to dispossess the petitioners by force; that vide Annexure 5 application, the non-petitioners-Lala Ram and others, themselves made a prayer in the Court of Assistant Collector, Jaipur, for appointment of receiver on account of breach of peace and thus according to learned counsel Shri Biri Singh, the order dated 7.11.2000 passed by S.D.M. was justified and there was no reason to interfere with the said order. Reliance is placed upon Sachdeva v. The State & Ann, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1436 , wherein it was held that proceedings u/s. 145 Cr.P.C., could not be dropped only on the ground of pendency of civil suit for injunction when such suit is not based upon title. 6. In Deva Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., RLR 1997 (2) 26 , this Court held that if the S.D.M. finds the case of emergent nature, the disputed property can be attached and receiver may be appointed over that property u/s. 146(1) Cr.P.C. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and 10 to 16 contended that three revenue suits were pending for partition of the entire land in dispute and thus it is a case of joint possession, hence the order of attachment with appointment of receiver was rightly set aside by revisional Court; that the said Court has specifically observed at page 4 of the impugned order that the Revenue Court passed order of temporary injunction restraining the present petitions on 26.8.2000. They were restrained not to interfere with possession of the non-petitioners (before this Court) as they are in possession of major portion of this disputed land. According to learned counsel Shri Mehrishi, in view of this injunction order dated 26.8.2000, the impugned order of S.D.M. dated 7.11.2000 was rightly set aside in two criminal revisions. It was also submitted that the learned S.D.M. no where observe that it is a case of emergency. He placed reliance upon Smt. Keshar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., WLC (Raj.) 1997(1) 514 , wherein it was held that parallel proceedings in Civil Court as well as u/ss. 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. should not be allowed to continue. In Ram Chandra & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1997 (1) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 215 , it was held by this Court that subsequent proceedings u/ss. 145, 146 in respect of same property amounts to abuse of process of Court. In Abdu Lal & Anr. us. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1999 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 542, it was held that though pendency of civil suit does not deprive Executive Magistrate of his jurisdiction u/ss. 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. but ordinarily he should refrain from appointing receiver. In Ranbir Singh v. Dalbir Singh & Ors., 2002 (2) Crimes 24 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that since both the parties have already filed civil suits and had obtained interim injunction, recourse to proceed u/s. 145 Cr.P.C., should not be taken and proceedings were rightly quashed by the High Court. 8. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of these judgments referred to hereinabove and find no infirmity, impropriety or illegality in the order dated 15.4.2002, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur. It is not in dispute that three revenue suits were pending and on 26.8.2000, the revenue Court passed interim injunction order, restraining the present petitioners not to interfere with possession of other persons who were in possession of major portion of the disputed agricultural land. The objections raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in one revision were that they were not added as respondents and in another revision the prayer was confined to only a minor part of entire land which are of not much significance as in revisions the learned revisional Court had considered the propriety and legality of the impugned order dated 7.11.2000. The order dated 10.11.2000 passed by Assistant Collector, asking the parties to maintain status quo and application of the present non-petitioners making a prayer for appointment of receiver do not afford any valid ground to interfere with the conclusions drawn by the learned revisional Court. The learned revisional Court having considered all the material on record rightly set aside the order dated 7.112.2000 (sic 7.11.2000) passed by learned S.D.M. 9. It is also significant to say here that the order of learned S.D.M. can not be justified in view of the provisions of Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. which provides that if the respondent at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of Section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach and appoint the receiver over the disputed property. The learned S.D.M. did not consider these provisions and simply passed an order making an observation that there is apprehension of breach of peace. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this revision. 10. Consequently, this revisional alongwith stay application is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******