ORDER : This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.12.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Revision No. 77 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 10.11.2001 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Koderma in Case No. 96 of 2000, whereby he dropped the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. and vacated the order passed under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. 2. The brief fact of this case lies in a narrow compass. It appears that on the behest of opposite parties / 1st party a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. initiated in connection with the land pertaining to Khata No. 13, Plot No. 106, Area – 1.12 acres, Plot No. 109, Area – 0.71 acres and Plot No. 133, Area – 0.09 acres situated at Village – Barwadih, P.S. -Jainagar, District – Koderma. Later on the said proceeding converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. It then appears that during the pendency of aforesaid proceeding, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate attached the aforesaid lands vide his order dated 02.10.2001 and appointed Circle Officer, Jainagar as Receiver. 3. It further appears that later on petitioners filed an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Koderma, praying therein to drop the proceeding, as one of the member of 1st party (opposite party no. 3) had filed an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the lands are in peaceful possession of petitioners / 2nd parties and the members of 1st parties had no claim over it. It is also stated in the said application that a partition suit is pending in the court of learned Munsiff, Koderma in between petitioners / 2nd parties and husbands of 1st parties. It appears that after considering the arguments of both the parties, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Koderma dropped the proceeding and vacated the order of attachment. It then appears that against the said order, opposite party no. 2 filed the revision in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Koderma, which was allowed by the impugned order. Against that, the present case has been filed. 4. It then appears that against the said order, opposite party no. 2 filed the revision in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Koderma, which was allowed by the impugned order. Against that, the present case has been filed. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned court below had allowed the revision application on the ground that the Suit No. 28 of 2000 is not pending between the parties, thus, law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1985 (1) SCC 427 will not apply in this case. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid decision also, one of the party in the civil suit was close relative of the parties of 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding. It is submitted that even then the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the civil proceeding is going on, then no parallel proceeding in a criminal court can run together. It is submitted that in a partition suit also the right, title and possession of the parties decided for allocation of their share. Thus, the said decision given in the partition suit is binding on the criminal court. Accordingly, it is submitted that finding of the learned court below is illegal, therefore cannot be sustained. 5. It appears that Sri Anil Kumar Sinha has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 (revisionist), but he submits that he has no instruction in this case, as the opposite party no. 2 had taken away the file from his Chamber. It is relevant to mention that no counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 2. Under the circumstance, I presume that the averments made in the instant application has been admitted and not denied. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. At paragraph no. 15 of this application, the petitioners stated that Partition Suit No. 28 of 2000 has been filed by the husbands of 1st parties / opposite party nos. 2 & 3. From perusal of the impugned order, I find that this fact has been brought to the notice of the court below. However, the court below rejected the aforesaid point on the ground that opposite party no. 2 is not the party in suit. 2 & 3. From perusal of the impugned order, I find that this fact has been brought to the notice of the court below. However, the court below rejected the aforesaid point on the ground that opposite party no. 2 is not the party in suit. The court below had further observed that the suit has been filed for partition and not for declaration of right, title and possession over the land in question. Accordingly, the learned court below has held that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1985 (1) SCC 427 , not applicable in the present case. The aforesaid reason given by the learned court below is not correct, because from perusal of aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find that in that case also the suit was pending between the appellant and close relatives of respondent nos. 2 to 5 and even then the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that two parallel proceeding, one in civil court and another in criminal court, cannot proceed, and accordingly quashed the proceeding pending in the criminal court. In the instant case, admittedly, the partition suit is pending between petitioners and husband of opposite party nos. 2 & 3. It is worth mentioning that even in a partition suit the civil court is required to give finding regarding the entitlement of each share holder over the land in question. In my view, aforesaid finding is binding upon the criminal court. Thus, the finding of the learned court below that the suit pending is a partition suit and not for declaration of right, title and possession, is misconceived and therefore cannot be sustained. In my view, even if a partition suit is pending between the parties, then a parallel proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in a Criminal Court cannot proceed as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid judgment. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I allow this application and quash the order dated 17.12.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Revision No. 77 of 2001.