JUDGMENT Banwaroo Khan , J. - A proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated by the respondent No. 2 (Mandir Murti Shri Sitaramji Maharaj, Panhori) against the petitioners before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deeg, Bharatpur with the averments that the land of Khasra Nos. 938, 939, 951 and 962 situated at Village Panohri, Tehsil Deeg, Bharatpur belongs to the Temple of Shri Sitaramji Maharaj, which is in their possession and is being ploughed by the said Trust, which has been created to look after the welfare of the Temple. It was mentioned that the persons belonging to the other party have taken possession illegally and the crop ploughed by them is likely to be destroyed by the petitioners.2. On this complaint, a notice was served upon the petitioners. In reply, it was stated that the land of said khasra numbers was purchased by them, and the order dated 11.7.1985 of the Tehsildar and the judgment dated 5.7.1985 of the Revenue Board, Ajmer favour them.3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, after going through the entire record submitted before it, came to a conclusion that there was a dispute regarding possession of the said land and as such vide order dated 8.9.1997 exercising the powers vested in him under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. appointed the Tehsildar as a Receiver and directed to attach the property.4. A revision was preferred by the petitioners against the said order of the S.D.O. which came to be dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur vide its order dated 10.5.2005, against which the petitioners have preferred this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and prayed for quashing of the two orders i.e. dated 8.9.1997 and 10.5.2005.5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the impugned orders.6. The proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. is preventive one and relates only to disputes regarding possession. In such proceedings, only conclusion about the possession is to be arrived at and no proceedings about the title can be taken into consideration. The principles and objects of the Section are to preserve the peace and not to determine the rights and title of the parties.8. In such proceedings, only conclusion about the possession is to be arrived at and no proceedings about the title can be taken into consideration. The principles and objects of the Section are to preserve the peace and not to determine the rights and title of the parties.8. A revision preferred by the respondents culminated in its dismissal so once in a suit, if the order of appointment of a receiver has been cancelled, as per arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, no further receiver can be appointed on the land, in dispute.9. The revisional Court has decided that the Khatedari of the disputed land now is in the nae of the respondents, which was previously in the name of the petitioners, but after going through the proceedings pending before the respective Courts, the khatedari is now in the name of the respondents. About the possession , s per affidavit submitted by the parties,both are claiming to be in possession of disputed land and the S.H.O. has also filed complaint about the land stating therein that the peace is likely to be destroyed if the parties are to be restrained.10. A bare perusal of the record and orders, reveal that neither any illegality nor any statutory violation has been committed in the orders passed by both the Courts below. In the proceedings, if it is found that the possession of the parties is not clear and there is a likelihood of breach of peace, then the Court below was well within its statutory authority to appoint receiver or to attach the property.11. No interference is to be called for by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the orders passed by the Courts below. Hence, this miscellaneous petition deserves to be dismissed.12. Consequently, this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioners against the respondents, is dismissed. Petition dismissed. *******