JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition under section. 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by petitioner assailing order dated 11.2.1994 (Annexure 4) of Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City who kept in abeyance order dated 7.2.1994 (Annexure 3) of restoring possession of the disputed plot and order dated 28.3.1997 whereby Special Judge (Prevention of Sati) Jaipur City dismissed Cr. Rev. No. 76/96 as not maintainable. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant for present controversy raised in proceedings under section 145, Cr. P.C. are that SHO Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur filed a complaint on 7.1.1991 before Executive Magistrate stating inter alia that both the parties (petitioner and respondents 2 and 3) were claiming possession over the plot E-23, Madhuban Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur, as there was apprehension of breach of peace; and thus sought for appropriate action in the matter. Notices were issued of the complaint to petitioner and respondents-both of whom filed their reply there. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 146 (1), Cr.P.C. for attachment of plot in question. After hearing the parties and being satisfied upon taking note of material on record, learned Executive Magistrate attached the plot in dispute and SHO PS Bajaj Nagar was appointed as Receiver vide order dated 30.3.1991 (Annexure 1) - in pursuance whereof' possession was taken over by SHO Police Station Bajaj Nagar who nowhere mentioned as to from whom he took the possession - which was set aside by Special Judge (E.C. Act) Jaipur City while allowing Cr. Rev. Rev. No. 33/92 vide order dated 4.2.1994 (Annexure 2) and matter was remanded back to the Executive Magistrate for handing over possession of plot in dispute to person from whom it was taken by receiver in accordance with law, in pursuance whereof, SHO Bajaj Nagar was directed vide order dated 7.2.1994 (Annexure 3) to hand over the possession from whom he took but without holding any enquiry, it was handed over to the petitioner; to which respondents 2 and 3 filed application objecting inter alia that without inquiry, possession of plot in dispute cannot be delivered; and after hearing the parties, the Executive Magistrate stayed delivery of possession and issued direction for restoration whereof also vide order dated 11.2.1994 (Annexure 4) in pursuance whereof notice dated 12.2.1994 (Annexure 5) was issued by SHO PS Bajaj Nagar and possession whereof remained in control of Executive Magistrate and has not been handed over to either of parties. Against said order dated 11.2.1994 (Annexure 4), petitioner filed criminal revision petition but it was dismissed by Special Judge (Prevention of Sati), Jaipur City vide order dated 28.3. 1997 (Annexure 6), holding that impugned orders are interlocutory in nature, revision petition under section 397 (2). Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, hence this Misc. petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. 3. Bone of contentions advanced by Shri N.A. Naqvi, Counsel for the petitioner is that once possession was handed over to the petitioner in compliance of order dated 4.2.1994. latter order dated 11.2.1994 (Annexure 4) for restoration of possession and notice dated 12.4.1994 (Annexure 5) issued by SHO PS Bajaj Nagar are without authority of law and Executive Magistrate has no competence to re-call the order issued for handing over possession to the petitioner; thus, very action initiated by Executive Magistrate after possession was handed over to the petitioner is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside inasmuch as such an action of Executive Magistrate has resulted in clear abuse of process of law. In support of contentions, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Naresh v. State of U.P., 1981 (3) SCC 74 : 1981 (18) ACC 61 (Sum) (SC) 4. In support of contentions, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Naresh v. State of U.P., 1981 (3) SCC 74 : 1981 (18) ACC 61 (Sum) (SC) 4. While supporting conclusions drawn by Executive Magistrate under orders impugned, Shri Ashok Gaur, Counsel for respondents submits that action initiated by Executive Magistrate in compliance of order of the Court of Revision was per se bad because in fact as per its order, the matter was remitted back to the Executive Magistrate to hold inquiry and restore possession from whom it was taken over by SHO PS Bajaj Nagar, In accordance with law; but having failed to do so, SHO PS Bajaj Nagar on its own handed over possession of plot to the petitioner, which is in derogation of the order passed by Court of Revision and that being so, on an application submitted by respondents before the Executive Magistrate who realised its mistake, immediately ordered to restore possession and the same will be handed over to the rightful claimant after holding inquiry in accordance with law; as such no error has been committed by Executive Magistrate in passing the order impugned. 5. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction with regard to the same disputed plot wherein temporary injunction has been refused and the issue of title and possession over suit plot is under adjudication; and the matter has been ripen for final disposal; thus proceedings initiated under section 145. Cr. P.C., being interim in nature could not have been initiated while civil suit is pending, where civil rights have to be determined and in such changed circumstances, proceedings initiated under sections 145 and 146, Cr. P.C., losses its significance. 6. I have considered rival contentions, of Counsel for both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that present dispute relates to plot No. E - 23, Madhuban Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur - in respect whereof, civil suit has been filed by petitioner seeking permanent injunction on 8.1.1991 wherein application seeking temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. has been finally rejected by Civil Court; and as per issues framed on the basis of pleadings therein, the dispute relating to title and possession over the suit plot is pending adjudication. Civil suit is listed before Trial Court for evidence of defendants - one or two witnesses are yet to be examined and thus the suit is ripen at final disposal stage, where alone, inter se civil rights of parties about the suit plot has to be finally adjudicated by Civil Court and the decree therein will finally be binding upon parties to the suit. 7. There cannot be any dispute about scope of sections 145 and 146, Cr.P.C. that in proceedings under these sections, the Court is not required to decide either title or right of possession of the property as it is concerned with dispute as to possession of immovable property is like to cause apprehension of breach of peace and about possession of property in dispute on the date of preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date. 8. Thus it is trite that proceedings under sections 145 and 146. Cr.P.C. are only prohibitory and precautionary to maintain peace, law and order over the disputed land and the authority thereunder are not required to finally determine inter se rights o y and if a party claims any legal rights on a disputed land for whatever reasons, it should first get it decided by a Competent Court of jurisdiction and execute the order/decree, if any, in accordance with law. 9. However, in instant case, before Court of Revision, the order of Executive Magistrate attaching the plot in dispute and appointing SHO PS Bajaj Nagar as receiver in exercise of power under section 146, Cr.P.C. was initially questioned and after the same was set aside, matter was remitted back to the Executive Magistrate to hand over possession of plot in dispute from which it was taken at the time when Receiver was appointed, after holding inquiry in accordance with law. Indeed, at the time the Receiver was appointed while attachment of plot in dispute, it was nowhere mentioned as to from whom possession whereof was taken and at all stages, both the parties made respective claims about holding possession on the date when the receiver was appointed in course of attachment. 10. Indeed, at the time the Receiver was appointed while attachment of plot in dispute, it was nowhere mentioned as to from whom possession whereof was taken and at all stages, both the parties made respective claims about holding possession on the date when the receiver was appointed in course of attachment. 10. From material on record, it is difficult to express any opinion as to from whom the Receiver took possession and both the parties failed to establish their prima facie claim and in ordinary course, it could have been considered by Executive Magistrate after holding inquiry in accordance with law as provided under section 145 (4). Cr. P.C., as directed by Court of Revision while passing its order dated 14.2.1994. 11. In Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi, 2003 (12) AIC 116 (SC) : 2004 (1) SCC 438 , Apex Court while examining scope of sections 145 and 146. Cr. P.C. observed that proceedings under these sections are quasi-civil, quasi criminal in nature or an executive or police action and basic object behind it is to provide a speedy and summary remedy so as to prevent a breach of peace by submitting dispute to the Executive Magistrate for resolution as between the parties disputing possession over the property. Accordingly, the Executive Magistrate having taken cognizance of dispute under these sections is required to confine himself ascertaining as to which of parties was in possession with reference to the date of preliminary order or within two months next before such date as provided in proviso to section 145 (4). Cr. P.C. and maintain status quo as to the possession until entitlement whereof is determined by a Court having competence to finally adjudicate civil rights, which the Executive Magistrate cannot do.Apex Court observed ad infra: "21. The order of the Magistrate under section 145/ 146 of the Code is not only an order passed by Criminal Court but is also one based on summary enquiry. The competent Court in any subsequent proceedings Is free to arrive at its own findings based on the evidence adduced before It on all the issues arising for decision before it. At the stage of judgment by Civil Court the order of the Magistrate shall be of almost no relevance except for the purpose of showing that an enquiry held by the Magistrate had resulted into the given declaration being made on a particular date. At the stage of judgment by Civil Court the order of the Magistrate shall be of almost no relevance except for the purpose of showing that an enquiry held by the Magistrate had resulted into the given declaration being made on a particular date. The competent Court would be free to record its own findings based on the material before it even on the question of possession which may be inconsistent with or contrary to the findings arrived at by the Magistrate." 12. In instant case, indisputably civil suit is pending, which alone will finally adjudicate inter se rights of either party including title and possession over the plot in dispute. 13. In the light of what has been observed by Apex Court in Shanti K. Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (supra). once dispute about title and possession over the plot in question is pending final adjudication in civil suit filed by petitioner, there is no justification available to allow continuation of proceedings initiated under sections 145/146. Cr.P.C.which are undoubtedly based on summary inquiry. 14. Submission of Counsel for petitioner that once the order being passed to restore possession by Receiver, could not have been revoked, is without any substance for the reason that the order passed by the Receiver (SHO PS Bajaj Nagar) was per se bad and Executive Magistrate was under obligation to first hold inquiry so as to determine in pursuance of order of the Court of Revision about a fact as to from whom possession was taken over on the date of appointment of Receiver in course of attachment under section 146. Cr. P.C., and in absence whereof, delivery of possession to either of parties was itself, arbitrary; that being so. it was merely an action restoring possession with an intent to hold inquiry in accordance with law pursuant to the order of Court of revision. 15. However parties to the dispute will be free to approach the Civil Court in the pending suit for appropriate interim order if so advised. 16. This Court does not find any illegality in orders impugned, warranting interference in inherent jurisdiction under section 482, Cr. P.C. 17. Consequently, Misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Record be returned back to the Court below.Petition Dismissed *******