Judgment : 1. By this application, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha in Criminal Revision No.5 of 2005 decided on 17.3.2007 and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Darwha in Criminal Case No.76/145/82, dt. 1.3.2005 with a prayer to remand the proceedings back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Darwha for decision afresh in accordance with law. 2. Briefly stated the facts appear thus : That, on 4th April, 1982, an Istegasha was presented by the Police Station Officer, Ner, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Darwha regarding Khakhinath Malkoji Deosthan, Ajanti, Tq. Ner, District Yavatmal. On 12th April, 1982, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Darwha had passed preliminary order in view of Section 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure informing the parties to appear before him on 28.4.1982. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate had appointed Tahsildar, Ner as a receiver during pendency of the said proceedings on 19.5.1982 so as to manage the affairs of Khakhinath Malkoji Deosthan, Ajanti. It is not disputed that the Court receiver still continues to manage the affairs of the aforesaid Deosthan and a Panch Committee has been appointed to look after the affairs of the said Deosthan since 1982 and there was no occasion for breach of peace during these years. It is the grievance of the applicant herein that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had ignored the mandate of Section 145 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to order handing over of the affairs to the Non-applicant nos.1 to 7. The order was challenged in Criminal Revision No.5 of 2005 which came to be dismissed. Thus, it is contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified to confirm the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 3. I have heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It does not appear in dispute that the Court receiver has been appointed since 19.5.1982. The Tahsildar, Darwha, District Yavatmal, who is the Court receiver, also deputed a panch Committee so as to look after the affairs of the said Deosthan. The learned Counsel for the respondents made reference to the ruling in the case of Vijay Kumar vs. Neeraj Kumar and Ors. The Tahsildar, Darwha, District Yavatmal, who is the Court receiver, also deputed a panch Committee so as to look after the affairs of the said Deosthan. The learned Counsel for the respondents made reference to the ruling in the case of Vijay Kumar vs. Neeraj Kumar and Ors. reported in 1990 Cr.L.J. 21 in order to contend that the question of title with respect to the property in dispute is not relevant when there is sufficient evidence regarding actual possession in the case. The Magistrate can however consider questions relating to title where such consideration is necessary in order to effectively decide the question of possession. Question of title, therefore, can be referred in proceedings u/s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only incidentally. The question of title may also be considered to corroborate or supplement other evidence as to possession. 4. There can be no quarrel over the proposition referred to in the ruling cited above. The proceedings u/s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has a definite purpose and foundation of jurisdiction in such cases is apprehension of breach of peace. Such an order passed in the proceedings initiated u/s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is always provisional and co-terminus with the passing of decree by the competent Civil Court. One cannot dispute that such provisional order in proceedings u/s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to actual possession do not decide title as in a civil suit because suit based upon title has to be decided by a competent Civil Court only. It is expected that the party aggrieved or the party who is found in possession by Magistrate can approach a competent Civil Court with a suit and may seek interim order for adequate protection of possession of the property during pendency of civil dispute. The proceedings initiated u/s. 145 are not required to be kept pending for years together before a Magistrate for the aforesaid reason. Because ultimately dispute as to title between the parties will have to be resolved by the competent Civil Court. The parties to the proceedings had sufficient time to approach the competent Civil Court, particularly when the Court receiver was appointed since 19.5.1982 and who is still functioning. There has been no reported occasion for a breach of peace, since then. 5. The parties to the proceedings had sufficient time to approach the competent Civil Court, particularly when the Court receiver was appointed since 19.5.1982 and who is still functioning. There has been no reported occasion for a breach of peace, since then. 5. In these circumstances, the only interference that is required or called for in the impugned decision is to modify the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dt.1.3.2005 to the extent that the receiver shall continue to look after the affairs of Deosthan through the Panch Committee until the dispute between the parties is decided by the competent Civil Court. The application is allowed to this extent. Sub-para 2 in the impugned order dated 1.03.2005 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Darwah directing the receiver to hand over possession to party no.1 stands modified accordingly. Needless to state that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall abide by the orders passed by the competent Civil Court in a suit filed, if any, in the matter. Rule is partly made absolute accordingly.