Judgment ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and Order passed in Criminal revision Case No. 157/2003 by the Court of 3rd additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby the Revision filed by the applicant against the order passed by the Special executive Magistrate, in proceedings under section 145 of Cr. P. C. refusing to drop the said proceedings Was upheld and revision was dismissed, applicant has fifed this application under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts, giving rise to this application are as under :- on 12-03-2003, Non-applicant No. 1 filed an application under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. before the Special Executive Magistrate and alleged that the plot admeasuring 500 sq. ft. out of City Survey No. 279, situated at Borgaon, nagpur, was in his possession since 14-12-1995. The original owner had permitted him to carry on development on the same. However, on 11-03-2003, the applicant - Abdul gaffar Abdul Samad, with the help of anti-social elements broke the lock of the gate of the said property and tried to take forcible possession of the same. ( 3 ) ON receipt of the said application, the Special Executive Magistrate asked the concerned Police Station to submit a report. When they submitted the report that there is a serious apprehension of breach of peace on account of the possession of the said property, the Special Executive Magistrate issued summons to the applicant and called upon him to show cause as to why an action under section 145 of Cr. P. C. should not be taken. ( 4 ) THE applicant appeared in the said proceedings and contended that the non- applicant No. 1 was never in possession, but on the contrary, the applicant has been put in possession of the said property and the Non- applicant in fact tried to obtain the forcible possession. The applicant also filed Regular civil Suit No. 419/2003 in the Court of Civil judge, Junior Division, Nagpur and on 24-3-2003, the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, nagpur, directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the said property. Hence, the applicant filed an application before the Special executive Magistrate and prayed that the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. be dropped as the matter was subjudice in civil court. The said application was, however, rejected by the Special Executive Magistrate. Hence, the applicant filed an application before the Special executive Magistrate and prayed that the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. be dropped as the matter was subjudice in civil court. The said application was, however, rejected by the Special Executive Magistrate. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 157/2003 in the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions judge, Nagpur and as the same was also dismissed, the applicant has filed the present application. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the applicant that while issuing the summons to the applicant, the learned Special Executive Magistrate had not verified and satisfied himself as to whether in fact there was possibility of breach of peace and as such it was necessary to take action under section 145 of Cr. P. C. The learned Special executive Magistrate had not recorded any reasons for issuing the summons and as such, the action taken by Special Executive Magistrate was illegal. Besides this, according to the applicant, the Special Executive Magistrate as well as the Court of Sessions ought to have taken into consideration the principle of law that when civil litigation is pending in respect of the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been agitated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. would not be justified and as such the order to drop the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. has to be passed. ( 7 ) THE Respondent No. 1 filed his reply and opposed the present application on several grounds. Firstly, he contended that he had earlier filed Criminal Writ petition No. 195/ 2003 against the present applicant. However, the same was withdrawn on 8-9-2003. But, while granting permission for the withdrawal, this Court (Coram : D. B. Bhosale, J.), had directed to expedite the proceeding in Criminal application No. 1/2003 filed before the Special executive Magistrate under Section 145 of cr. P. C. , and as a result of the same, so long as that order is in existence, the present application is not maintainable which is in fact for dropping of the said criminal proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. The respondent also contended that as the Revision filed by the present applicant is already dismissed, present application under section 482 of Cr. P. C. The respondent also contended that as the Revision filed by the present applicant is already dismissed, present application under section 482 of Cr. P. C. is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 397 (3) of cr. P. C. Lastly, the respondent contended that since the year 1995 he was put in possession of the suit property under the agreement and the Applicant in fact tried to take forcible possession of the same and as such he initiated the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. before the Special Executive Magistrate. The said proceedings were filed prior to filing of the civil suit by the applicant. He also contended that merely because the civil suit is filed by the applicant, proceedings under Section 145 of cr. P. C. cannot be dropped. Hence, on all these grounds, the respondent No. l prayed for dismissal of the application. ( 8 ) THE Respondent No. 2 State of maharashtra also filed its reply and took the similar contentions. ( 9 ) IN this application before me, the learned Advocate for the applicant has urged only two points. Firstly, he submitted that the learned Special Executive Magistrate has not recorded the reasons while issuing the summons to the applicant and therefore the said order is not legal and valid. Secondly, he canvassed before me that as the civil suit was filed by the applicant, proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. should have been dropped. ( 10 ) FROM the perusal of the provisions of Section 145 of Cr. P. C. , it does appear that whenever Executive Magistrate is satisfied from the report of a Police Officer that a dispute between the parties is likely to cause brearh of peace, he shall make an order, in writing, setting the grounds of his being so satisfied and thereby call upon the parties to appear before him. However, merely because in a particular case, the Executive Magistrate has not recorded any grounds in the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. , it cannot be said that the action initiated by him is illegal. However, merely because in a particular case, the Executive Magistrate has not recorded any grounds in the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. , it cannot be said that the action initiated by him is illegal. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that on receipt of the application, the Executive Magistrate had called upon the concerned Police Station to enquire into the matter and submit a report and it is only after the time, the concerned Police Station made the report to the effect that there is dispute between the parties with regard to the possession and there is reasonable apprehension that the said dispute may give rise to breach of peace, the Executive Magistrate proceeded to issue the summons to the party. It is crystal clear that on the basis of the said report, he has taken the said action. It means as from the perusal of the report, he was convinced that it is necessary to take action, he has issued the summons. So, this itself shows that the executive Magistrate, after satisfying himself, has taken the action in question. The learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 has drawn my attention to a case Abdul Gaffar Vs. State of Goa and Anr. (Crimes IV-1995 (2) 34), wherein this Court had held that: if Magistrate has perused the Police report and felt satisfied before issuing order under Section 145 of cr. P. C. , order cannot be faulted merely on a ground that grounds were not stated in the order. So, taking into consideration the facts of this case and the position of law, I think that there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant in this behalf. ( 11 ) THE main and material question to be decided in this matter is: whether under the circumstances of the case, proceedings under section 145 of Cr. P. C. are required to be dropped because of the fact that the applicant has filed Regular Civil Suit for declaration and injunction and the Court has passed the order to maintain status quo in respect of the property in question. ( 12 ) THE learned Advocate for the applicant has drawn my attention to a case - ram Sumer Vs. ( 12 ) THE learned Advocate for the applicant has drawn my attention to a case - ram Sumer Vs. State of U. P. ( AIR 1985 SC 472 ) to substantiate his proposition that once the civil suit is filed by the party, the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. cannot be proceeded. I have carefully gone through the said ruling. However, it has to be mentioned that the facts of the said case and the facts of the case in hand are quite different. In that case, a suit for possession and injunction, involving the question of title, was dismissed and appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree and when it was pending, the Apex Court held that parallel proceedings under Section 145 of cr. P. C. should not be permitted to continue and the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court. Here in the instant case, admittedly, the application under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. has been filed by the Non-applicant no. 1 much prior to the filing of the civil suit, as it is the order that has been passed by the civil Court is only for maintaining status quo. So the facts of the said case and the case in hand are different. It is not that the Civil Court has given any particular finding after adjudication. Besides this, even in that ruling also, the Apex Court has not laid down any proposition that in each and every case, where the civil suit is pending, the proceedings under section 145 of Cr. P. C. has to be stopped. On the other hand, if we see the other ruling, that has been cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant, namely, Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lata prasad Dubey ( AIR 2000 SC 1504 ) we find that the Apex Court has referred the earlier decision of Ram Sumer (cited supra) and has in fact observed thus : ". . . We clarify that we are not stating that in every case where the suit is filed, proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. would never lie. . . We clarify that we are not stating that in every case where the suit is filed, proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. would never lie. It is only in cases, where civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned can be applied for and granted by the civil Court, that proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. should not be allowed to continue. This is because the civil court is competent to decide the said question of title as well as possession between the parties and order of the civil court would be binding on the Magistrate. " ( 13 ) SO, this is in fact the correct position of law whether in a given case the proceedings are to be stopped or not depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. There is no such rule of law that in every case where the civil suit is filed, proceedings under section 145 of Cr. P. C. are to be stayed. In fact, in the above cited ruling, the suit was for possession, thereby indirectly it was admitted that the other side was in actual possession. However, in the instant case, it is not so. The suit is merely for declaration and injunction. Hence, the above cited ruling also is of no use to the applicant. As against this, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on a case - Prakashchandra Vs. State of Maharasthra (1995 Cri. L. J. 2117) wherein, the Apex Court has held that proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. need not be necessarily dropped on the ground of pendency of the civil suit. It is further observed that where the dispute is not in respect of the right to the possession, but on the question of possession, Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. Even in the other ruling cited by the learned Advocate for the respondent,i. e. 1996 Cri. LJ. 1743, shashi Bhushan Gupta Vs. Moolchand gupta. The Allahabad High Court has observed that pendency of civil suit is not a bar to proceeding under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. and executive Magistrate has jurisdiction to decide as to who was in possession of the property in dispute. LJ. 1743, shashi Bhushan Gupta Vs. Moolchand gupta. The Allahabad High Court has observed that pendency of civil suit is not a bar to proceeding under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. and executive Magistrate has jurisdiction to decide as to who was in possession of the property in dispute. So taking into consideration the above mentioned position of law and the facts and circumstances of this case the argument of the learned advocate for applicant that the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. ought to have been dropped can not be accepted. There is another aspect of the matter. From the perusal of the record, it is very clear that the order that was passed by the Special executive Magistrate was only with regard to rejection of the applicant's application for dropping the proceeding under Section 145 of cr. P. C. He had not determined any rights between the parties, nor he had given any final direction in the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. I have elaborately discussed about as to how under the circumstances of the case, the Special Executive Magistrate was justified in rejecting the prayer with regard to dropping of proceeding under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. After both the learned advocates advanced the arguments at length and the matter was fixed for orders on 13-2-2004 the applicant submitted an application seeking permission to file copy of the plaint of the special Civil Suit No. 745/2003 filed by Saket developers; i. e. the present non-applicant No. 1 in the Court of 2nd Joint C. J. S. D. , Nagpur under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The production of the said copy is strongly opposed by the advocate for the non-applicant. It has to be mentioned that the said suit was filed even prior to the date of hearing of this application, and as such, the present applicant could have very well produced the said document before the hearing of this application. No reason for non-production of such document is given by the applicant. Under the circumstances, when the present scope of the application is whether the order passed by the Revisional Court is correct or not and when this document was also notavailable to both the Courts below, it is in fact not justifiable to allow him to produce the said document at this stage. Under the circumstances, when the present scope of the application is whether the order passed by the Revisional Court is correct or not and when this document was also notavailable to both the Courts below, it is in fact not justifiable to allow him to produce the said document at this stage. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the applicant is entitled to file this document and the same can be considered, still the fact remains that merely because the non-applicant No. 1 has filed a suit for specific performance that by itself would not be sufficient to grant the present application in view of the fact that as this plaint discloses that the plaintiff in the said suit namely the non- applicant No. 1 was dispossessed on 11th march, 2003. I have already mentioned above that in spite of the passing of the order with regard to status quo, the Special Executive magistrate found that dispute is going on between the parties. Not only that, criminal cases have been filed against each other and there is possibility of breach of peace. Having regard tp this aspect, I think that there is no necessity to interfere with the orders passed by both the lower Courts and to grant any relief as prayed by exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr. P. C. Hence, the application is rejected. Application dismissed.