ORDER This petition relates to an emergent order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore (respondent 1) appointing the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore as the receiver of an Ashram called as "Omkarashrama" situated in Srinivasapura, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. 2. The dispute relates to the succession to the seat of his Holiness Sri Sri Sri Shivapuri Swamiji, the pontiff of Ashram who is stated to have died on 25-7-2007. The petitioner Sri Sri Sri Madhusudananandapuri Swamiji claims that as per the Will dated 26-11-2005, he was installed as successor, whereas Sri Sri Sri Purushothamanandapuri Mahaswamy claims to have been appointed as successor by the previous Swamiji on 25-10-2007. 3. The observation of the 90th day obsequies ceremony of the deceased Swamiji had been arranged and apprehending clash between two groups, PSI, Kengeri Police Station submitted a report to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Western Region, Bangalore who in turn made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate requesting for requisite order. It appears that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate opined that appointment of a receiver was not possible under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He passed the order (bearing No. MAG:CR:12/07-08, dated 24-10-2007) under Section 146(1) of the Cr. P.C., appointing the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk as the receiver of the properties. It is that order which has been challenged by Sri Sri Sri Madhusudananandapuri Swamiji in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 4. Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to attach any property under dispute and appoint a receiver arises only after proceedings are initiated under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. and that in the present case the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate having already formed an opinion about the absence of any necessity to proceed under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C., the question of appointing a receiver to the properties does not arise at all. He submits that in that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is without jurisdiction. He has also made certain submissions regarding the justifiability of placing the petitioner in possession of property, but those facts need not be gone into in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. at this stage since the question of maintainability of the order impugned itself is under consideration. 5. He has also made certain submissions regarding the justifiability of placing the petitioner in possession of property, but those facts need not be gone into in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. at this stage since the question of maintainability of the order impugned itself is under consideration. 5. Sri Honnappa, learned High Court Government Pleader had been directed to verify as to whether any proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. had been initiated in the present case. Matter verification, he submitted that no such proceedings have been initiated under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. The receiver i.e., the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk is present and he submits that no proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. have been initiated in the present case. 6. A perusal of the provisions of Section 146 of the Cr. P.C. makes it clear that the order for attachment of the subject of dispute and appointment of a receiver for such properties may be only if the Magistrate at any time after making the order under Section 145(1): (1) considers the case to be one of emergency; or (2) he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Section 145; or (3) he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute. It is therefore clear that the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate to pass an order under sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Cr. P.C. is only after he passes an order under Section 145(1) of the Cr. P.C. A Magistrate cannot summarily pass an order under Section 146(1) without recording a preliminary order under the preceding section, i.e., Section 145(1). In that view of the matter, the present order has to be considered as premature. 7. However, taking into consideration the events that had taken place which were widely reported in Press mentioning group clashes, the present arrangement has to be continued until the Sub-Divisional Magistrate takes requisite steps to preserve public peace and to avoid any law and order problem. 8. Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has already come to the conclusion that there was no need to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr. 8. Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has already come to the conclusion that there was no need to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. On a perusal of the letter of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the Police Inspector, Kengeri Police Station, I find that, that opinion was in respect of appointment of receiver under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. and that opinion does not come in the way of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. if the circumstances so exist. 9. It may be observed that as far as possible, the dispute has to be settled in a Civil Court and any steps that can be taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Police Officers shall be for the purpose of maintaining peace, law and order. 10. With the above observation, the petition is allowed and the impugned order bearing No. MAG:CR:12/07-08, dated 24-10-2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore South Taluk is hereby quashed keeping liberty to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take fresh action if the circumstances so exist, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr. P.C., or any other action in accordance with law. The position as is existing now shall continue till 5.00 p.m. on 5-11-2007 with the possession being with the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, till then.