JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Three Petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated, 27th February, 2001, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gogri in Case No. 497(M) of 2000, by which the learned Magistrate has converted the proceeding initiated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners have further prayed for quashing of an order dated, 2nd May, 2001 passed by the learned Magistrate whereby a receiver was appointed in respect of disputed land in the said proceeding. 2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of an application filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 to the Gogri Police mentioning therein that there was a dispute with regard to an area of 2 Bigha agriculture land appertaining to Khata No. 1, Plot No. 359 at Mauza- Baisa, the Police conducted an enquiry during which second party (Petitioners) were absent. However, the Gogri Police submitted a report to the learned Magistrate mentioning therein that there was apprehension of breach of peace in between the parties in respect of the said land. On the basis of report submitted by the Gogri Police, the learned Magistrate initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed for issuance of notice to the parties. Subsequently, by an order dated, 27th February, 2001, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Gogri in Case No. 497(M) of 2000 converted the proceeding initiated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and again, Show Cause Notice was issued to the parties and the learned Magistrate by the impugned order i.e. order dated, 2nd May, 2001 appointed a receiver in respect of the disputed land. The learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order rejected the petition filed on behalf of Petitioners (second party) for dropping the proceeding under Section 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved with both the orders i.e. order dated, 27th February, 2001 as well as order dated, 2nd May, 2001, the Petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition which was finally admitted on 9th July, 2002. Aggrieved with both the orders i.e. order dated, 27th February, 2001 as well as order dated, 2nd May, 2001, the Petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition which was finally admitted on 9th July, 2002. While admitting, lower Court record was called for and same has already been received and lying with the record of the present case. 3. Sri Upendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while challenging the impugned orders has raised several points. It was firstly submitted that the land in question actually belongs to the Petitioners since same had come in their share through oral partition in between the family members of the Petitioners and Opposite Party No. 2 and he was coming in peaceful possession over the land in question since the date of partition and was also growing crops over the same land. It was submitted that even the Opposite Party No. 2 had admitted that both the parties were "Gotias" being their common ancestors. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that in respect of partition of the land in question and other properties a suit vide Title Suit No. 57 of 1993 was pending in which father of Petitioners as well as father of Opposite Party No. 2 were party to the said proceeding. It was submitted that while making a prayer for withdrawal or cancelling order of initiation of Section 145 proceeding the Petitioners had filed their show cause before the learned Magistrate wherein they have specifically mentioned regarding pendency of the suit i.e. Title Suit No. 57 of 1993 since long. However, the learned Magistrate while either converting the proceeding from Section 144 to Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or even at the time of appointing receiver by the order dated, 2nd May, 2001 had simply ignored the said point and he had not at all discussed in its order regarding the pendency of the suit. It was submitted that since the dispute in respect of the land in question was already subject matter before the Court of competent jurisdiction the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not at all authorised to pass order either for initiation of proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or for appointing the receiver by the order dated, 2nd May, 2001 and accordingly, it was prayed to set aside both the orders. 4. Sri CM. 4. Sri CM. Chaurasia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the Petitioners. It was submitted that the land in question had fallen into the share of the Opposite Party No. 2 and the Petitioners were unnecessarily creating disputes claiming their title and possession over the land in question. It was further submitted that the learned Magistrate was fully satisfied regarding apprehension of breach of peace over the land in question, and as such, had rightly passed both the orders which requires no interference. It was further submitted that the crops over the land in question were auction sold and proceed was also directed to be kept in Government treasury subsequent to the order dated, 2nd May, 2001. 5. Sri Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State. 6. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record including the lower Court records. 7. From the materials on record as well as specific pleading before this Court which has not been refuted it is clear that in respect of the land in question also a suit vide Title Suit No. 57 of 1993 was pending. Besides this, the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate at the time of passing order dated, 2nd May, 2001 has completely ignored that hearing of both the sides was necessary and in absence of the Petitioners has passed the order. It further appears from the impugned orders that the Petitioners had filed a petition objecting hearing by the particular Magistrate. However, both the petitions were not entertained nor the learned Magistrate has bothered to take notice that a suit in which fathers of both the parties were party was already pending. The Court is of the opinion that during the pendency of suit before the competent Court the learned Magistrate was not required to pass the impugned orders. However, from the order sheet it is evident that no stay order was passed in favour of the Petitioners and matter remained pending for quite a long time. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that initiation of impugned proceeding by the learned Magistrate was unwarranted and accordingly, both orders are set aside. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that initiation of impugned proceeding by the learned Magistrate was unwarranted and accordingly, both orders are set aside. However, while allowing the present petition it would be appropriate to pass an order for maintaining status quo for further period of three months so that, either of the parties may approach the competent Court where Title Suit No. 57 of 1993 is pending. The status quo shall be operative for a further period of three months from today. 9. With above observation and direction, the order dated, 27th February, 2001 passed in Case No. 497 (M) of 2000 as well as order dated, 2nd May, 2001 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gogri are hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.