ORDER Heard Shri Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Shri Ram Sewak Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Pradeep Narayan Kunwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1/State and Shri Dineshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party nos.2 to 5. 2. 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 14.8.2008 passed in Case No.297 of 2008 by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachhia, whereby the learned Magistrate has converted the proceeding, which was initiated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit in between opposite parties and vendor of the petitioners was pending in the Civil Court vide Title Suit No.4 of 1992. The Vendor had transferred some land to the petitioners. It was submitted that since a suit in relation to the land in dispute was already pending before the competent court, the Executive Magistrate was not having any authority to initiate proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that it has already been held that if there is any dispute in relation to the suit property and a suit is pending before the competent court, remedy available to the parties is to approach before the same court and the Executive Magistrate has got no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter. 4. In support of his argument, Mr. Khan, learned Senior Counsel has referred to an apex court order reported in 2001(10) SCC 758 (Mahant Ram Saran Das Vs. Harish Mohan & others). 5. While opposing the prayer of the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 5 has argued that petitioners are stranger to the suit, which is pending before the court below. They are not party and as such since there was apprehension of breach of peace in relation to possession over the land in question, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that in relation to land in question, a suit before the competent court vide Title Suit No.4 of 1992 was already pending. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that in relation to land in question, a suit before the competent court vide Title Suit No.4 of 1992 was already pending. If there was any grievance to either of the parties, they were having remedy to file appropriate petition in the pending suit and Civil Court where a case was pending, was competent enough to pass appropriate order. In any event, the learned Executive Magistrate was not entitled to proceed with the case as indicated above. Mahant Ram Saran Das’s case (supra) is indicative of the fact that in such situation, the Executive Magistrate may not interfere or may not initiate any such proceeding. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above, the impugned order i.e. order dated 14.8.2008 passed in Case No.297 of 2008 is hereby set aside. The parties will be at liberty to approach competent court of civil jurisdiction. 8. With above observation and direction, the petition stands allowed. ?