JUDGMENT Hon’ble M.K. Mittal, J.—This application has been filed by Srimali Prema Devi widow of Ram Prasad Dubey under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 7.8.1986, 1.9.1986 and 24.2.1986 passed by S.D.M. Padrauna and the order dated 2.7.1987 passed by Sessions Judge, Deoria and also the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 248/86, under Section 145, Cr.P.C., Rajendra Dubey v. Prema Devi, pending in the Court of S.D.M. Padrauna at Kasia, District Deoria. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party Rajendra Prasad Dubey filed an application under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and S.D.M. passed the preliminary order on 7.8.1986. The applicant filed an application (Annexure-5) for dropping the proceedings as civil case was pending between the parties. Learned Magistrate by order dated 24.2.1987 rejected the application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to review the earlier order. Against that order the Criminal Revision No. 121/87 was filed by Smt. Prema Devi in the Court of Sessions Judge which was also rejected by order dated July 2 1987. Feeling aggrieved this application has been filed. 3. The contention of the applicant is that originally her husband Rajendra Prasad Dubey was Bhumidhar of plot No. 209/1.26 half portion and plot No. 197/1.75 pertaining to chak Nos. 31, 209, 174, 197, situate in village Pakhnaha, P.S. Nebuwa Naurangia, Padrauna. Her husband died in 1978 and she inherited these plots and her name was also mutated in the revenue record. However, after the death of her husband Bachha Dubey, father of the opposite party claiming himself to be the real brother of Rajendra Prasad Dubey, moved an application for mutation of his name and in that matter the applicant filed an objection and her claim was accepted by Consolidation Officer. Bachha Dubey did not file any revision or appeal against the order dated 18.4.1984 passed by Consolidation Officer and the same became final. The opposite party managed to obtain a fictitious gift deed allegedly executed by the applicant on 31.8.1985 in the province of Bihar by setting up some fictitious Smt. Prema Devi. When the applicant came to know about it she filed a Civil Suit No. 737/85 in the Court of Munsif Kasia and interim order was passed on 3rd April, 1986 which still holds good. When the applicant came to know about it she filed a Civil Suit No. 737/85 in the Court of Munsif Kasia and interim order was passed on 3rd April, 1986 which still holds good. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 filed the present application under Section 145, Cr.P.C. contending that he was in possession over the plot in suit on the basis of the gift deed executed by the applicant in favour of his son. On that application the orders were passed as referred above. The case of the applicant is that the application was not filed for review of the earlier order but was filed for dropping the proceeding as civil suit was pending between the parties and the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge fell into error when they rejected the application and the revision. 4. The opposite party filed counter affidavit and contended that the applicant had executed the bakshishnama on 31.8.1985 in the presence of the Registrar and on the basis thereof, the name of the applicant was also recorded in the land revenue record in the consolidation proceedings. According to the opposite party he was in possession over the disputed plots and that the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. were not liable to be quashed because the gift deed could not be cancelled by the Civil Court. The applicant filed rejoinder affidavit and contended that the alleged bakshish-nama is a forged document and she has filed a suit for its cancellation in Civil Court which is maintainable. She has been in possession throughout over the disputed plot and her name continues to be recorded in the revenue record. The order passed by Consolidation Officer mutating the name of the opposite party on the basis of the forged bakshish-nama was an ex parte order. On the application filed for setting aside the said order, the same has been set aside and is no longer in existence. She continues to be in possession and the interim order still holds good. The dispute between the parties can be decided by the Civil Court and the civil suit is maintainable and proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. are liable to be quashed as it amounts to multiplicity of the proceeding. 5. She continues to be in possession and the interim order still holds good. The dispute between the parties can be decided by the Civil Court and the civil suit is maintainable and proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. are liable to be quashed as it amounts to multiplicity of the proceeding. 5. I have heard Sri P.N. Tripathi learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Srivastava learned Counsel for the opposite party, learned AGA and have perused the material on record. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the recorded tenure holder and the opposite party obtained a forged deed by impersonating her and the same has been challenged in the civil Court and the civil Court is competent to cancel that deed. He has also contended that since the matter is pending in the Civil Court the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. are superfluous and are liable to be dropped. He also contended that the application filed in the Court of the Magistrate was not for review but was for dropping of the proceedings and the learned lower Courts erred in rejecting the same. 7. Against it the learned Counsel for the opposite party has contended that the suit pending in the Civil Court is for cancellation of the gift deed regarding agricultural land and therefore it is not maintainable in the Civil Court and the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. are not liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on the case of Kamla Prasad and others v. Sri Krishan Kant Pathak and others, (2007) 102 RD 378 (SC). In that case the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by him on the ground that it was illegal, without authority of law and null and void. In that case the plaintiff also impleaded, defendants 10 to 12 as co-bhumidhars of the disputed land as they also had a right in the disputed property. On the basis of that sale deed the mutation had taken place and the names of the defendants had been recorded. In the mutation proceeding, the plaintiff was a witness. In that case the plaintiff also impleaded, defendants 10 to 12 as co-bhumidhars of the disputed land as they also had a right in the disputed property. On the basis of that sale deed the mutation had taken place and the names of the defendants had been recorded. In the mutation proceeding, the plaintiff was a witness. In the circumstances it was held that since the right of other co-sharers was also involved which could be declared by Revenue Court and that the defendants were recorded in the revenue records, therefore the sale deed could not be cancelled by the Civil Court. 8. In the instant case, the facts are different. Here the applicant is the exclusive Bhumidhar of the plot in possession and her name continues to be recorded in the revenue records. The mutation made in favour of the opposite party on the basis of the order of Consolidation Officer has already been set aside as is apparent from paper Annexure RA-1. The applicant also continues to be in possession over the disputed land and the interim order passed in the civil suit is still in existence. In the case noted above, the case of Shri Ram and another v. Ist Additional District Judge and others, 2001 (92) RD 241 (SC), has been referred and it will be relevant to quote the relevant portion of paras 14 and 15 of the judgment : "Shri Ram, A the original owner of the land sold it to B by a registered sale-deed and also delivered possession and the name of the purchaser was entered into revenue records after mutation. According to the plaintiff, sale-deed was forged and was liable to be cancelled. In the light of the above fact, this Court held that it was only a civil Court which could entertain, try and decide such suit. The Court, after considering relevant case law on the point held that where a recorded tenure holder having a title and in possession of property filed a suit in Civil Court for cancellation of sale-deed obtained by fraud or impersonation could not be directed to institute such suit for declaration in Revenue Court, the reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. 15. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. 15. The Court, however, proceeded to observe : “The position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale-deed by filing a suit in the Civil Court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the Revenue Court, as the sale-deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession.” 9. The case of the present applicant is covered by the observations made in this case. Here the applicant is recorded tenure holder and is in possession and her title is not under cloud and therefore Civil Court is competent to decide the suit for cancellation of the alleged gift deed. In the circumstances the contention as made by the learned Counsel for the opposite party is not tenable. 10. Learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (1985) 1 SCC 427 , where it has been held that when a civil litigation is pending for the same property wherein the question of possession is involved and the parties are in a position to approach the Civil Court, the parallel proceeding under Section 145 must be quashed. 11. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge erred in not dropping the proceeding in criminal case and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the application under Section 482 is to be allowed. 12. The application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and the proceedings in the case under Section 145, Cr.P.C. (Case No. 248/86) are hereby quashed. ————