JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned orders whereby orders under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. have been passed and revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 2. The contention of the present petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 is having a land bearing Khasra No. 1390, just adjacent to the land of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 wants to grab the land of the present petitioner. He has many a times threatened the petitioner to forcibly dispossess the petitioner. Hence, the present petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed an F.I.R. at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharapur in which final report was placed before the competent Court. But, at the same time, the SHO, PS, Nadbai has also submitted an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C., wherein the learned Court below has appointed a receiver of the said property. The revision petition was also dismissed. 3. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the agricultural land for last 25 years and the petition has been filed just to fulfill the ulterior motive of the respondent and the trial Court has been guided by the fact that the land is in the ownership of the State but inquiry of ownership is foreign to the proceedings under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. There is no evidence of any emergency or eminent danger and hence the impugned orders are per se illegal. It has also been submitted that no inquiry has been conducted as provided under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. and no final order has been passed tinder Section 145(6) Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that now the civil Court has considered the matter and a permanent injunction has been ordered in his favour and looking at the above, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that now the civil Court has considered the matter and a permanent injunction has been ordered in his favour and looking at the above, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the civil Court has decided the matter on 19.11.2008, much after the impugned orders and the impugned orders cannot be quashed on the grounds, which were not available at the time of the impugned orders and he has further submitted that according to Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., the order of attachment is subject to determination of the rights of the parties by civil Courts and hence the present petitioner should ask for an appropriate remedy before the competent Court. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned orders goes to show that the revisional Court has been guided by the fact that the present petitioner is not having a legal possession. The revisional Court has specifically held that the present petitioner is in possession of the land. It is also not in dispute that the civil suit was pending between the parties and now when the civil Court has already decided the matter, the continuation of criminal proceedings is abuse of process. In the complaint, it has been stated that the present petitioner is having possession over the disputed land and hence there was no dispute about the possession of the land and there is no allegation about the eminent danger and hence parallel proceedings are not maintainable. 7. The learned Courts below have not taken care about the provisions of Sections 145(4) and 145(6) Cr.P.C. and without conducting inquiry and giving a final finding about the factum of possession, the proceedings have been disposed, which is per se illegal. 8. In view of the above, this petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside and the proceedings initiated in Case No. 1/2005 pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nadbai are also hereby quashed.Petition Allowed. *******