ORDER The petitioner is the B-Party and a final order has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate in MC.No.2 of 2005 dated 25.5.2005. On conclusion of the enquiry, the learned Magistrate in the first part of the order has given a finding to the effect that A-Party has got right to possession of the property. This finding of the learned Magistrate has been questioned. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that repeatedly it has been held by the Supreme Court and High Courts that right to possession only can be decided in a proceedings under Sec.145, Crl.P.C., and right to title of the property cannot be decided. The learned Magistrate in the present case decided the title of the property. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is relying on the decision in Shandi Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi, 2004 S.C.C.(Crl.) 320, para.10 wherein it is stated as follows: “Possession is nine points in law. One purpose of the enforcement of the law is to maintain peace and order in society. The disputes relating to property should be settled in a civilized manner by having recourse to law and not by taking the law in own hands by members of society. A dispute relating to any land etc., as defined in Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.145 having arisen, causing a likelihood of a breach of the peace, Sec.145 of the Code authorizes the Executive Magistrate to take cognizance of the dispute and settle the same by holding an enquiry into possession as distinguished from right to possession or title. The proceedings under Secs.145/146 of the Code have been held to be quasi-civil, quasi-criminal in nature or an executive or police action. The purpose of the provisions is to provide a speedy and summary remedy so as to prevent a breach of the peace by submitting the dispute to the Executive Magistrate for resolution as between the parties disputing the question of possession over the property. The purpose of the provisions is to provide a speedy and summary remedy so as to prevent a breach of the peace by submitting the dispute to the Executive Magistrate for resolution as between the parties disputing the question of possession over the property. The Magistrate having taken cognizance of the dispute would confine himself to ascertaining which of the disputing parties was in possession by reference to the date of the preliminary order or within two months next before the said date, as referred to in the proviso to Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.145 and maintain the status quo as to possession until the entitlement to possession was determined by a Court, having competence to enter into adjudication of civil rights, which an Executive Magistrate cannot. The Executive Magistrate would not take cognizance of the dispute if it is referable only to ownership or right to possession and is not over possession simpliciter; so also the Executive Magistrate would refuse to interfere if there is no likelihood of breach of the peace or if the likelihood of breach of peace though existed at a previous point of time, had ceased to exist by the time he was called upon to pronounce the final order so far as he was concerned.” 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the second respondent as well as the Government Advocate (Criminal Side). In view of the said position of law, the order passed in MC.No.2 of 2005 dated 25.5.2005 is hereby set aside and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to take up the proceedings afresh and proceed in accordance with law, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 5. The order passed herein will not affect rights of the parties before the Civil Court. With this observation, this petition is closed.