JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the revisional Court and consequently, the Additional District Magistrate (City) has also passed the order dared 9.1.2009 whereby the property of the petitioner has been attached and appointment of receiver has been ordered. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the competent Court with the fact that the plot in dispute has been purchased by him but the present petitioner time and again threatened him to take the possession of the disputed plot and on 31.7.2005, he prayed for initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and also prayed for attachment. 3. Learned Executive Magistrate, after preliminary inquiry of the matter, has come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. No emergency subsists and hence no case is made out to attach the property in dispute. Against that order, a revision petition was filed by the respondent No. 2 and the revisional Court has ordered the Executive Magistrate to pass appropriate order in relation to attachment and appointment of receiver. On this order, the Executive Magistrate, vide order dated 9.1.2009, attached the property and appointed a receiver. Hence this petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 5. The contention of the present petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have been initiated way back on 22.12.2006 and on 19.12.2008 and 9.1.2009, there was no apprehension of breach of peace between the parties and the order has been passed merely on the ground that a dispute of title exists between the parties and it is not in dispute that the dispute regarding title cannot be looked into in the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a civil suit is also pending regarding the same property, wherein temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the petitioner and the same has also been confirmed by the appeal and when there is no reasonable apprehension of breach of peace, the impugned order is perverse and illegal. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer & Anr., 2002 (3) CCC 411 (SC) , wherein it has been held that if no emergency to apprehend breach of peace, then order of attachment is illegal. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Mahar Jahan & Ors. v. State of Delhi & Ors., 2006 (2) CCC 664 (SC) , wherein it has been held that when regarding the disputed house civil suit is pending, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not warranted. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the proceedings are going on and after inquiry, the matter will be crystalized and there is no basis to interfere with the impugned orders. 8. The first contention of the present petition is that the revision petition was not maintainable against the order of the Additional District Magistrate (City) and he placed reliance on the judgment delivered in Yaqub Ali v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1995 Cri.L.J. 1376 , wherein it has been held that the orders under Section 146(5) Cr.P.C. are interlocutory in nature and hence no revision is maintainable. 9. Looking at the above, the impugned order dated 19.12.2008 is unsustainable and only on this count, the same is liable to be quashed. 10. The revisional Court has ordered the trial Court to pass appropriate order in relation to attachment and appointment of receiver. Hence, this specific direction is also unwarranted and on this count also, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 11. The contention of the present petitioner is well founded that the matter was pending before the trial Court since 22.12.2006 and at that point of time, the trial Court specifically came to the conclusion that there was no apprehension of breach of peace between the parties and hence attachment was not ordered. After a lapse of about 21/2 years, the revisional Court was not justified in ordering the attachment of property as there was no reasonable apprehension of breach of peace. 12. The proceedings of civil cases have also been submitted, which go to show that the civil suit is also pending between the parties, wherein injunction order has been ordered in favour of the petitioner. 13. 12. The proceedings of civil cases have also been submitted, which go to show that the civil suit is also pending between the parties, wherein injunction order has been ordered in favour of the petitioner. 13. Hence, looking at the above, this petition is allowed and the order of the revisional Court dated 19.12.2008 and consequential orders of the trial Court dated 9.1.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******