Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This is an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 6.2.2004 passed by Sri S.N. Kunwar, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in case No. MI/1852 of 2003 by which he has converted the proceeding under Section 144 into one under Section 145 of the Code. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a title partition suit bearing No. 18. of 1966/107 of 1973 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Hajipur for partition of his half share in the properties mentioned in Schedule I to V-A of the plaint, The suit was decreed in respect of Schedule I property only. He preferred First Appeal No. 39 of 1987 before this Court against the judgment and decree which was admitted on 8.9.1989 for hearing. Thereafter he also got an order of injunction on 1.5.1998 in his favour restraining the Opposite Parties from alienating the Schedule I property. He further submitted that the impugned order would show that the property involved in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code is a part of Schedule I property mentioned in the plaint of the above noted suit and that though in the show cause this fact was mentioned, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order holding that there is bonafide land dispute between the parties. His contention further is that where a civil litigation is pending between the parties, there is no need for initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that there is bona fide land dispute between the parties and there is apprehension of breach of peace between them and hence the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate was justified in passing the impugned order. 5. It appears to be an. admitted position that a civil appeal is pending before this Court involving title and possession of the parties regarding the property in the proceeding. 5. It appears to be an. admitted position that a civil appeal is pending before this Court involving title and possession of the parties regarding the property in the proceeding. But when a civil litigation involving question of title and possession is pending for the same property, a parallel proceeding under Section 145 of the Code will amount to multiplicity of litigation and wastage of public time and money because question of title and possession has to be finally decided in the civil suit and not in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. So I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no need to initiate a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate and it would be a misuse of process of Court to continue the same. 6. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. It is, however, made clear that if the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate finds that there is still apprehension of breach of peace, he may take recourse to the proceeding under section 107 of the Code.