JUDGMENT 1. - A chequered history of many rounds of litigations between the parties has not culminated in any result which commenced since 1990 when the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to 'the SDM') on 26.10.1990 after attaching the property of Khasra Nos.437 and 390 appointed Naib Tehsildar, Pushkar as receiver and the possession of the property belonging to both the khasras was taken in compliance of the orders passed by the SDM. The order of attachment was challenged before this Court by filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1371 of 1991 which came to be decided on 10.10.1996 and a direction was issued to the Naib Tehsildar, Pushkar to hand over the possession of the disputed land to the person from whom the land was taken and the order of the SDM was quashed. As there was confusion about the persons from whom the possession of the disputed property was taken, the SDM sought clarification from the Court as to whom possession of the disputed property be handed over as it was not clear that from whom the possession was taken by the receiver and the SDM again appointed Naib Tehsildar, Pushkar as receiver of the disputed property. Both the parties approached the Sessions Judge by filing two separate revisions which were registered at Nos. 17/98 and 31/98 which came to be decided by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 04.08.1999 by which the order of the SDM dated 02.03.1998 was quashed and a direction was issued by the court to hand over possession to the person from whom possession of the property was taken. The learned Sessions Judge also directed the SDM to expedite the enquiry about the identity of the person from whom the possession was initially taken. Concealing the fact of pending revisions before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer a criminal misc. petition was filed by respondent No. 1 and during pendency of the revision, Mehant Santosh Giri expired on 24.11.1998 and the petitioner was appointed as Mehant of Mandir Kapaleshwar Mahadev. In the said pending S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1371 of 1991,S.B.Criminal Misc. Concealing the fact of pending revisions before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer a criminal misc. petition was filed by respondent No. 1 and during pendency of the revision, Mehant Santosh Giri expired on 24.11.1998 and the petitioner was appointed as Mehant of Mandir Kapaleshwar Mahadev. In the said pending S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1371 of 1991,S.B.Criminal Misc. Application No.841 of 1998 was filed and by playing a fraud on the court it was mentioned that a civil suit in between the parties is pending and relying on this averment, the court vide order dated 24.09.1999 directed that since the parties already have approached the civil court it is not proper on the part of the court to Interfere with the matter. The civil court was directed to adjudicate upon the rights and title to and possession over the suit property and the misc. petition was disposed of. 2. The petitioner now has moved this petition for recalling the said order. As per the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner this order was obtained by Balak Das by concealing the material facts on the basis of the pendency of the civil suit whereas no such suit was pending before the court about rights, title and possession of the disputed property. Therefore, the order dated 24.09.1999 was obtained by playing a fraud and concealing the material facts. So when there was no pendency of any suit, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which never culminated into its finality should be taken on record and the SDM be directed to hand over possession of the land to the person from whom he has taken possession about which an inquiry had already been conducted by him. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court was misguided at the time of disposal of S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 841/1998 as the counsel appearing for the applicant misguided the court by mentioning the fact that a civil suit No. 124/1997 is pending (though this number was wrongly mentioned as it relates to a T.I. Application and suit number is 118 of 1997). Counsel has further submitted that since no civil suit was pending it was incumbent upon the court to have decided the question of possession which is still lingering on. Counsel has further submitted that since no civil suit was pending it was incumbent upon the court to have decided the question of possession which is still lingering on. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that if the order has been obtained by putting the court in dark by concealing the material facts and narrating false statement, then to secure the ends of justice the order must be recalled as no civil suit was pending about title, rights of the parties in the disputed land. In such circumstances it was incumbent upon the court to have decided the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Moreover the suit presented by the petitioner does not relate to the disputed land but relates about the rent of the shops belonging to petitioner temple. The relief which was claimed was that the respondent should not be allowed to recover the rent of the shops and the suit was never for the rights and title of the parties or for possession of the disputed property and the same said suit had already been withdrawn by them. Till 24.09.1999 no civil suit about the rights and title of the parties was pending about the land in dispute. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submitted that in all circumstances the order passed by this court on 24.09.1999 was obtained by playing a fraud on the Court, therefore it should be recalled and the SDM should be directed to hand over possession and the property in dispute as per the enquiry conducted by him. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar & Ors. /SC/0239/1984 : AIR 1984 SC 1471 wherein it was observed that pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and order, if any, passed thereon does not in any way affect the title of the parties to the disputed premises though it reflects the factum of possession and the party cannot acquire any title or right by coming over property without leave or consent of Receiver or sanction of Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it was not the respondent who played fraud on the court but the petitioner himself by withdrawing the suit has played a fraud on the court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it was not the respondent who played fraud on the court but the petitioner himself by withdrawing the suit has played a fraud on the court. Of course, the civil suit pending was about recovery of rent of shops but in the said suit also the question of possession could have been decided by the Court. The petitioner got the suit dismissed on 14.12.2000 by withdrawing against which order the respondent has filed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 474 of 2001 which came to be decided on 04.04.2006 as non-maintainable however observing that if so chooses the petitioner will be free to seek appropriate remedy by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3128/2006 which is still pending judgment. Referring to Section 362 Cr.P.C. learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that this Section does not empower a criminal court to alter or review its judgment already passed except to correct clerical or arithmetical error. It is then submitted that the order dated 24.09.1999 passed by this Court has attained finality and no such fraud or concealment of facts as alleged by the petitioner is borne out from the material available on record and as such the application deserves to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has cited the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Chancier Agarwala & Ors. (1979) 2 SCC 305 , Mohd. Yaseen v. State of U.P., 2007(2) WLC (SC)Cri. 554 : (2007) 7 SCC 49 . Mahant Ram Saran Dass v. Harish Mohan and Another (2001) 10 SCC 758 , Ranbir Singh v. Dalbir Singh and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 700 and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors. 2008(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 127 : (2008) 2 SCC 705 . In the case of State of Orissa (supra) it was observed that when the judgment attains finality, alteration or review of the judgment is not allowed. In the case of Mohd. Yaseen (supra) it was observed that when the judgment attains finality, alteration or review of judgment in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be done by the High Court and a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In the case of Mohd. Yaseen (supra) it was observed that when the judgment attains finality, alteration or review of judgment in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be done by the High Court and a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In the case of Ranbir Singh (supra) it was held that in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the question regarding title, right and possession of the parties cannot be gone into wherein in the case of Sunita Jain (supra) it has been observed that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised in rarest of rare cases. On the strength of the case law cited by the counsel for the respondent, he has submitted that the order passed by this Court on 24.09.1999 cannot be recalled. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have gone through the material available on record as well as the law cited at bar by learned counsel for the parties.It is a settled law by a catena of judgments that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used in rarest of rare cases and sparingly and that too to secure the ends of justice and if there is manifest error of law and jurisdictional error, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. So also it is settled that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should not be continued when a civil court has passed an injunction or order about possession of the property in dispute. 6. It is not always in every case where a civil writ is filed, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. never lie. Wherein an interim order of injunction has been passed by a civil court, the section has no application and it is only in cases where the civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same disputed property is pending and no interim relief is granted then proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be kept alive. Similarly, proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed merely on the basis of pendency of civil suit when the subject matter is not of the disputed property. 7. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the civil suit as mentioned in the order dated 24.09.1999 was perused. Similarly, proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed merely on the basis of pendency of civil suit when the subject matter is not of the disputed property. 7. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the civil suit as mentioned in the order dated 24.09.1999 was perused. On perusal of the civil suit it reveals that it was simply a suit against Naib Tehsildar for recovery of the rent of the shops and the same was not related with title, rights of the parties and possession. So, pendency of the civil suit in no circumstances can affect the proceedings pending under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Though the respondents were not the defendants in the said suit but by putting an application they were impleaded as a party but the same suit was withdrawn. Pendency of the suit on which reliance has been placed by the Court while passing the order dated 24.09.1999 does not relate for the possession, title or declaration about the disputed property. Hence, the reliance on the said suit if given effect to on the arguments of the respondents, is clearly a wrong fact which was mentioned by the party concerned. At the relevant time, if this suit could have been perused certainly the order passed could not have been passed. If any suit in between the parties is about the title, rights or possession about the disputed land then certainly the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be kept continued. The order so passed was obtained by giving wrong facts and in these circumstances the ends of justice require that the order dated 24.09.1999 should be recalled as was passed on the wrong facts and arguments on the part of the party concerned because the pending suit never related to title, right or possession regarding the property in dispute. The proceedings about forming of a trust were also challenged before the Commissioner, & Devasthan Department which also resulted in favour of the petitioner. Of course there is an order passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Pushkar but that too about Khasra Nos.389 and 388 which do not relate to the disputed property. 8. The proceedings about forming of a trust were also challenged before the Commissioner, & Devasthan Department which also resulted in favour of the petitioner. Of course there is an order passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Pushkar but that too about Khasra Nos.389 and 388 which do not relate to the disputed property. 8. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and from a bare perusal of the material and documents placed on the record of the file it is borne out that about the disputed property at present no such suit is pending for the rights, title and possession and the enquiry in compliance of the court order has already been concluded by the SDM. Therefore, in the interest of justice it is desirable that the order passed by this Court on 24.09.1999 be recalled and the SDM concerned be directed to hand over possession of the disputed property to the person from whom he has taken possession. 9. Consequently, this Misc. Petition is allowed. The order dated 24.09.1999 passed by this Court is recalled and the SDM is directed to hand over possession of the disputed property to the person from whom he has taken possession as per the inquiry conducted by him. However, this order will be subject to any order passed by a competent civil court.Petition Allowed. *******