Judgment :- This revision filed by B Party (Counter Petitioner – 4) in M.C.No.421/2006 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (North) at Pondicherry. Against the order passed by the learned executive Magistrate under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned executive Magistrate does not reflect the satisfaction about the disputed possession or likelihood of cause of breach of peace in the locality and the order does not reflect the ground of satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in A.I.R.1914 Madras 78 – between Subbarama Aiyar and another V. Mariya Pillai; 1999 (III) CTC 641 – between Selvaraju V. S.H.Officer, Nettapakkam Police Station, Nettapakkam and 2003(4)CTC 232 – between Ponnammal and another Vs.State, rep. By Revenue Inspector, Kinathukadavu and others. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that there is a Civil Suit also pending in respect of the same. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent (A-Party) submitted that mere pending of Civil Suit would not affect the jurisdiction of the learned Executive Magistrate and the petitioner herein has not filed the suit. 5. This court perused the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which is as follows:- Whereas the SHO, Muthialpet P.S. has laid information before me that a dispute exists between the counter petitioners of A and B parties concerning the possession and enjoyment of the property at Flat No."E" and "B" of Pranam Appartments, in Pondicherry Revenue Village in T.S.No.2, Ward – B, Block 16, R.S.No.85/2pt, Cad.No.812, in the limit of the Taluk Office, Pondicherry and it is apprehended that this dispute is likely to cause imminent breach of peace at Muthialpet P.S. limit which is coming within my jurisdiction6. 6. This Court, on more than one occasion, had held that under Section 145(1)Cr.P.C., the Magistrate having jurisdiction shall make an order in writing that he was satisfied either from a police report or other information that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace existed, and the grounds of his satisfaction should be clearly stated to indicate application of mind by the Magistrate in passing the preliminary order. 7. 7. There are three fundamental requisites to maintain an order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code are needed and they are, (1) there must be a report of a police officer or other information that a dispute was likely to cause breach of peace concerning the property mentioned in the section; (2) the Magistrate must be satisfied with such police report or other information that the dispute was likely to cause breach of peace; and (3) on the satisfaction of the Magistrate, he must make an order in writing stating the grounds for satisfaction in the order, under Section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code. 8. Merely a Magistrate stating that he is satisfied from a police report or other information that a breach of peace was likely to be caused, he is recording the fact of his satisfaction but not the grounds of his satisfaction. The Order, therefore, must indicate the grounds for finding that there was likelihood of breach of peace and any non-compliance, certainly vitiates the preliminary order which is passed under Section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code. 9. This court finds that there is a non-compliance with the provision of Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., in the impugned Order and therefore the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is unsustainable. 10. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as these orders have been passed by the learned Executive Magistrate passed on 26.05.2006 and now nearly two years is to elapse, there is no necessity to remand the matter back for fresh order. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent submitted that as the Civil Suit is still pending and as no final order has been passed, orders under Section 145(1) of Criminal Procedure Code is not vitiated and relied on the decision rendered by this Honble High Court in 1993 CRI.L.J.1285, S.P. Nagarathinam V. Sub-Divisional Magistrates and Sub-Collector, Thanjavur and others, wherein it is observed as follows: “The copy of the plaint in O.S.156489 before the District Munsif, Thanjavur is filed. From it, I find that the petitioner herein had filed the suit against the counter petitioner No.1 of B party and four others, arraying them as defendants 1 to 5 and has prayed for a relief of permanent injunction in respect of the verandha portion in Door No.90, Manojiappa Street, which is the property concerned in S.145, Criminal Procedure Code was initiated on 11. 90 in respect of unlawful dispossession made on 290. After elaborate enquiry, in a well considered order, the lower authority had held that A party was in possession but was unlawfully dispossessed on 290. The question is whether simply because a civil suit was filed, will it operate as a total bar for initiation of any proceedings under S.145, Criminal Procedure Code, whatever be the circumstances, when no final decree was passed in the civil suit. My clear answer is in affirmative No. Unless there is order or decree binding upon the parties, mere filing of a civil suit at an earlier point of time, cannot act as a cover up for all acts done by the plaintiff with regard to the suit property at any subsequent point of time though his action gives rise to circumstances warranting initiation of proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., in N.A. Ansary v. V.Jackiriya, 1900 LW CRI 93: (1991 Cri LJ 476), Justice Janarthanam had formulated two points for consideration. The first point is as follows: (i) When a Civil litigation is pending with regard to a property involving the question of possession and has been adjudicated, there is hardly any justification for initiating parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C." After considering the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Ramsumar Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., 1983 LW Cri 84: (1985 Cri LJ 752) and of this Court in Magdoon K.S. v. N.S.Jalal, 1988 LW (Cri) 89 and Vallimalai v. Ayyannan Ambalam, 1986 LW (Cri) 110, the learned Judge had answered the point as follows: "In the view, I have taken it goes without saying that the first point has to be answered in the neggative." In Venkarakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1989 LW (Cri) 44 : (1989 Cri LJ 1836) the same learned Judge had held that there is no legal bar for proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Proceedings as well as proceedings before the Civil Court and that they can go on simultaneously. The learned Judge has further held that once a Civil Court passed a decree in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings, it is binding upon the Magistrate. The learned Judge has further held that once a Civil Court passed a decree in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings, it is binding upon the Magistrate. If the Civil Court had passed a decree prior to the initiation of proceedings under S.145, Criminal Procedure Code, then it may not be possible for the Magistrate to proceed under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and decide the question of possession as the Civil Court had already decided such matter. In the instant case before me, the Civil Court had not decided the matter of possession. One party had approached the Civil Court by filing suit for permanent injunction and it is pending. It did not get terminated at all in a decree in favour of one party. In such circumstances, the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is not barred and an order can be passed in such a proceeding. In view of the above, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel Mr.T. Susindran that the order in M.C.117/90 is liable to be quashed. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that one of the person of the B party has filed a suit before the III Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry and an order of interim injunction has been ordered against the second respondent herein on 211. 2006 itself. 13. For the reasons already stated above, the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pondicherry under Section 145(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, is set aside and accordingly the revision is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. But the proceedings are remitted back tot he file of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pondicherry, for fresh consideration in accordance with law.