JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 13.7.2006 whereby the Assistant City Magistrate cum Sub Divisional Officer has initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and at the same receiver has been appointed under Section 146 Cr.P.C. regarding the disputed land and the revision petition has also been dismissed. 2. The short facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed by the SHO, PS, Bagar before the SDM stating therein that petitioner was having the possession of land and he has received the possession by the license given by the father of the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 but now the respondents want to take back the possession but the petitioner has refused to deliver the possession. 3. It was not disputed before the trial Court that the present petitioner is in possession of the land and he is cultivating the land. It has also been specifically stated before the trial Court that a civil suit is also pending regarding the same disputed land. The complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been submitted on the strength of the application, which was given by the respondent No. 2 to S.P., Jhunjhunu, wherein it has been specifically stated that the present petitioner is cultivating the land for last 15 years and it has also been stated in the application that the possession of the disputed land be given to him by dispossessing the petitioner. 4. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not meant for dispossessing a person, who is in possession. The learned Courts below have considered the title of the property, which is out of the scope of inquiry under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Hence, the order of the trial Court is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed. 5. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is cultivating the land since long and the complaint has been filed before the trial Court in the year 2005, whereas the order of attachment has been ordered in July, 2006, i.e., after a delay of one year and there was no emergency or eminent danger or apprehension of breach of peace and on the same time, the civil Court has also ceased with the matter. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2004 (3) RCC 1302 , wherein it has been held as under "A mere breach of peace does not bring a case within the gamut of this Section. The term "emergency" means existence of factors of conditions under the control and management of the Court. Where there exists no emergency, attaching of the disputed land and appointment of receiver are bad. When civil Court has passed an order for maintenance of status qua, an order directing attachment of the property and appointing a receiver can not be justified." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment rendered in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1424/2002 (Mooldas & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), decided on 8.1.2003 , wherein the facts were identical. An F.I.R. was filed by the complainant stating therein that the petitioners are in possession. He filed complaint in April, 2000 and impugned order of attachment was passed in June, 2001 and during the intervening period, no such incident of making the peace has taken place between the parties. 8. Same is the situation in the case in hand. There is also no apprehension shown regarding breach of peace. No incident has been shown, which has taken place between the parties and hence the impugned orders are per se illegal. 9. The contention of the present petitioner is that when the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the land, impugned orders are without jurisdiction and he has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Ranbir Singh v. Dalbir Singh & Ors., RLW 2002 (3) SC 393 . wherein it has been held as under: "The Court, while dealing with a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is mainly concerned with possession of the property in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date; the Court is not required to decide either title to property or right of possession of the same. The question for determination before the High Court in the present case was one relating to the validity or otherwise of the preliminary order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. and sustainability of the order of attachment passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. For deciding the questions it was neither necessary nor relevant for the High Court to have considered the matters relating to title to and right of possession of the property. Further, both the parties in the case have filed suits seeking decree of permanent injunction against each other and in the suit filed by the appellant an order of interim injunction has been passed and an objection petition has been filed by respondent No. 1 The suits and the interim order are pending further consideration before the civil Court." 10. Looking at the above legal position and the facts of the case, this petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******