JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. for quashing of criminal proceeding initiated under Section 145 Cr.PC. vide order dated 8.7.2005 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pilibanga and also prayed that the Criminal Case No. 4 of 2005, State v. Gurdeep Singh and Ors. be set aside. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are owners, occupiers and khatedar-tenants of an agricultural land situated in 'Chak' 16 PBN, stone No. 17/303 measuring 25 Bighas, and 17/302 measuring 5 Bigha, total 30 Bighas and petitioners' name also recorded in the 'Jamabandi'. It is also stated that they are in possession of the aforesaid land. 2. The SHO Police Station, Pilibanga filed a complaint or 06.07.2005 before the SDO Pilibanga stating therein that complainant iota Singh, Laxman Singh, Jasber Singh moved an application that the aforesaid land purchased by them by way of an agreement to sale from the fathers/grand-fathers of the petitioners/proforma respondents in the year 1986. In part of contract the possession,of the land was also delivered to them and since then they are residing there and cultivating the Kharif crop. 3. After registering the complaint, the notices were issued to the petitioners and proceeding was initiated under Section 145(1) of Cr.PC. and ultimately the SDO appointed the Tehsildar as receiver vide its order dated 12.04.2007 on the land in question while exercising powers under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. 4. This order is under challenge on the ground that in the civil first appeal this Court after issuing the notices in the year 1997 stayed the execution and operation of 'the decree till the disposal of the petition and since then no proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC. can be initiated. 5. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no apprehension of breach of peace and at the instance of respondent, the complaint was registered and receiver appointed while exercising power under Section 146(1) of Cr.PC. 6. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that petitioners are not in possession of the land in question, as in pursuance of agreement to sale the possession was handed over. A suit is pending regarding specific performance but not with regard to the possession. 6. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that petitioners are not in possession of the land in question, as in pursuance of agreement to sale the possession was handed over. A suit is pending regarding specific performance but not with regard to the possession. Further the learned counsel for the, respondents placed reliance on the judgment passed by this court in the case of Chhagan Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in WLC (Raj.) UC 2006 Pg. 578 . This court has held that Civil Suit on question of title pending in the civil court -Pendency of civil suit no bar to proceedings under sections, strong possibility of breach of peace and appointment of Receiver is justified. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the judgments passed in the case of Sushil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1997 pg. 94 and in case of Nathu Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in RLW 2001(2) Raj. Pg. 821 . 8. Having heard the rival submissions of the respective parties and considering the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Chand Sachdeva v. State & Anr., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1436 and upon careful perusal of impugned order passed by the courts below, it is not disputed that the agreement to sale was executed between the parties but the same has not transferred in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent has filed the suit for specific performance which is pending and as per the report of SHO, there is a likelihood and strong possibility of breach of peace. On the complaint by SHO, Pilibanga, the SDO rightly appointed the Tehsildar as Receiver on the aforesaid land. This court find no illegality or error in the order impugned passed by the court below apparent on the face of record.Consequently the misc. petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******