JUDGMENT 1. - Instant revision petition filed under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing order dated 24.02.1993 passed by Sessions Judge, Merta in Criminal Revision No. 32/1986 (Amar Chand & Others v. Ladu Ram & Others) , whereby, the learned Sessions Judge while quashing order dated 25.06.1986 passed by S.D.M., Parbatsar remitted the case No.17/82 filed under Section 145, Cr.P.C. by the respondents for deciding the same afresh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 24.02.1993 passed in revision filed by the respondents is illegal and contrary to law because admittedly prior to initiation of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. a revenue suit was filed by the respondents but the same was dismissed by the revenue Court, so also, in the judgment rendered by the Munsiff & Judl. Magistrate, Parbatsar dated 28.03.1980 the trial Court gave finding that on 26.06.1975 the petitioners were in possession, therefore, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the S.D.M. was perfectly justified, in which, the proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 145, Cr.P.C. was decided and it was declared that the petitioners were in possession upon the disputed agricultural land comprised in khasra No.972, rakba 27 bigha 3 biswa at Shyampura. Learned revisional Court however solely relied upon the fact that the matter was decided only on affidavits of some witnesses; but, this fact is not correct because other material including judgment of the criminal Court rendered in Criminal Case No.169/1975 dated 28.03.1980 was taken into consideration, in which, it was held that no offence under Section 147, 148, 323 and 427, I.P.C. is made out because the accused were in possession of the land in question. Further, the S.D.M. relied upon the fact that revenue Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondents, therefore, the order passed by the revisional Court is contrary to the facts on record. 3. Further, the S.D.M. relied upon the fact that revenue Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondents, therefore, the order passed by the revisional Court is contrary to the facts on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of the Court towards judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. & Others, reported in 1985 Cr LR (SC) 57 , in which, it has been held that decree of civil Court is binding upon the criminal Court in the matter of possession of the property, therefore, it is prayed that impugned order passed by the revisional Court below may be quashed and set aside and order/judgment passed by the S.D.M., Parbatsar may be restored. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents, Mr. Vineet Jain vehemently argued that for deciding the case under Section 145, Cr.P.C. the material evidence is required to be taken into consideration. Proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits, therefore, the order of revisional Court is justified and this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in this case undisputedly the suit filed by the respondents before the revenue Court was dismissed and in the criminal case also filed in the year 1975 the Munsiff & Judl. Magistrate, Parbatsar, in criminal case No.169/1975, decided on 28.03.1980, held that no case under Section 447, I.P.C. is made out because the petitioners were in possession of the land. 6. In this view of the matter, when revenue Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondents claiming their right in the disputed land, so also, in the criminal case registered against the petitioner for offences under Section 147, 148, 323 and 447, I.P.C., it is held that the petitioners were in possession, then, in my opinion, learned Sessions Judge has committed an error while ignoring the above facts. In these facts and circumstances, the judgment of the revisional Court below deserves to be quashed because the S.D.M. Decided the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. on the ground that there is material evidence of adjudication on record to show that the respondents were not in possession of the disputed land. 7. In these facts and circumstances, the judgment of the revisional Court below deserves to be quashed because the S.D.M. Decided the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. on the ground that there is material evidence of adjudication on record to show that the respondents were not in possession of the disputed land. 7. In view of the aforesaid, while following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant's case (supra), this revision petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 24.02.1993 passed by Sessions Judge, Merta in Criminal Revision No.32/1986 is quashed and set aside.Revision allowed. *******