JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 16.1.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chirawa whereby the Sub Divisional Magistrate has appointed the receiver over the disputed property under Section 146 sub-clause (1) Cr.P.C., and revision against the said order, has also been dismissed. 2. The short facts of the case relevant for disposal of the petition are that Executive Officer of Pilani Municipal Board filed a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. to S.H.O., Pilani on 9.4.2003 against the petitioner as well as party No.2, respondent No.2. In the complaint, it was not alleged that there is danger of breach of peace between the petitioner and the other party. The proceedings were initiated on the said complaint. On 16.1.2006 abruptly, the court below has appointed the receiver on the disputed property without recording any finding that it is the case of emergency and the contention of the present petitioner is that the impugned order is per verse and illegal and be quashed. The other contention of the present petitioner is that Pilani Charitable Trust has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction on the ground that trust is the owner and in possession of the property. In the written statement, the petitioner submitted that the disputed property is in actual possession of the petitioner. A stay order was granted which was amended in the appeal and after considering the possession of the present petitioner, order of status quo has been issued. The contention of the present petitioner is that when civil proceedings were pending between the parties, the stay was operative, there was no reason for the SDM to appoint a receiver and that too when no emergency was existed. Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor is that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. None is present for respondent No.2. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order as well as the documents produced by the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 4. Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor is that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. None is present for respondent No.2. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order as well as the documents produced by the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 4. It is not in dispute that a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C., has been filed on 9.4.2003 at that time no prayer was made to appoint the receiver or to order anything under the provisions of Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., thereafter on 16.1.2006 nearly after about three years of lodging of the complaint, receiver was appointed over the property. Nothing has been mentioned in the impugned order that it is a case of emergency or there is an imminent danger of breach of peace and the present petitioner has rightly relied upon Sua Lal & ors. v. Kana & Anr., 2003 Cr.L.J. 2273 whereby the court has held that under the provisions of Section 146 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate was bound to observe that it is a case to be one of emergency. Further reliance has been placed on Bhrigunath v. Parmeshwar, 1996 Cr.L.J. 1552 where also it has been held that attachment order without recording of finding that it is a case of emergency is not proper. Here in the present case also the court below has not recorded the finding as provided under Section 146 sub-clause (1) Cr.P.C., that it is a case of emergency. Admittedly, the complaint was filed on 9.4.2003 thereafter nobody has agitated before the court below that some emergency has been created or there is an imminent danger of breach of peace and in the absence of finding which was essential as per the provisions of Section 146(1) Cr.P.C, the order of court below dated 16.1.2006 is liable to be quashed.The other contention of the present petitioner is that civil litigation were pending between the parties at the time of passing of the impugned order. Civil suit then was dismissed and first appeal and second appeal has also been dismissed. Civil suit then was dismissed and first appeal and second appeal has also been dismissed. The Additional Sessions Judge on 28.6.2006 has rightly ordered to maintain status quo of the property and when civil court was seized with the matter and status quo was operative, the order of appointment of receiver is also per verse and reliance has been placed on Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. & ors., AIR 1985 SC 472 wherein it has been held: "The criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and the parties are in a position to approach the civil court." 5. Further reliance has been placed on Jagannath v. State of M.P., 1992 Cr.L.J. 1310 wherein also it has been held that where prior to the attachment order temporary injunction was issued by the civil court, on earlier report no action was taken by the SDM and suddenly without any emergency order under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. has been passed which was found to be erroneous. Here in the present case also the facts are similar. Earlier on 9.4.2003 when complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed no order for attachment was issued suddenly without any finding of emergency order dated 16.1.2006 has been passed in spite of the fact that order of maintaining status quo was operative between the parties.In view of the above, the present petition is liable to be accepted and order dated 16.1.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chirawa and order dated 28.6.2006 passed in Revision Petition No. 76/2006 (34/2006) by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu are quashed and set aside. *******