JUDGMENT 1. - These criminal misc. petitions under section 482 CrPC have been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 30.08.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision Nos.46/2014 and 60/2014. The Cr. Revision No.46/2014 was filed on behalf of Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur-petitioners in S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.2974/2014 and Cr. Revision No.60/2014 was filed by Harbai-petitioner in S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.529/2015. The revisional court has rejected both the revision petitions and confirmed the order dated 01.08.2014 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in the proceedings under section 145 CrPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint filed by Station House Officer, Police Station, Nai Mandi, Gharsana on 28.03.2014, the trial court has initiated the proceedings under section 145 CrPC and ordered for attachment of agricultural land measuring about 22 bighas situated in Chak No.4H and also appointed SHO, Police Station, Nai Mandi, Gharsana as receiver. The trial court has also ordered for issuance of notices to the rival parties for submitting their case on 21.04.2014. On 31.03.2014, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur with a prayer for vacating the order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the trial court of attaching the disputed land and appointing the S.H.O., Police Station, Nai Mandi as receiver. The said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 07.04.2014. However, in the meantime, two separate revision petitions were preferred, one by petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur and another by petitioner-Harbai before the revisional court challenging the order dated 28.03.2014, which came to be dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 04.06.2014 and the order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the trial court was affirmed. However, the revisional court has directed the trial court to pass an order regarding possibility of breach of peace within a period of 100 working days after providing opportunities to both the parties. 3. Pursuant to the directions given by the revisional court, the matter was taken up by the trial court and the trial court, after hearing both the parties, has passed the order dated 01.08.2014, whereby it has ordered that the disputed property would remain subject to attachment until the decision of the civil court in the suits filed by the rival parties. The trial court has further directed that for the proper management of the disputed property, a separate bank account be opened and the amount be deposited in that account. It has been observed by the trial court that after disposal of the civil suits filed by the parties before the civil courts, the necessary orders would be passed regarding possession as well as the amount deposited. Being aggrieved with the order dated 01.08.2014 passed by the trial court, both the parties have filed separate revision petitions before the revisional court and the same have been dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2014. Hence, these criminal misc. petitions. 4. Mr Kulwant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur has argued that the trial court has failed to consider that the possession of the disputed land was taken over from petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur by the SHO, Police Station, Nai Mandi, Gharsana on 29.03.2014. It is contended that in the attachment memo, prepared by the SHO on 29.09.2014, it is clearly mentioned that things as well as cattle belonging to the petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur were found in the disputed land and the SHO had issued notice to them to remove the same from the land in compliance of the attachment order passed by the trial court. 5. Learned counsel Mr Kulwant Singh has submitted that from the attachment memo, it is clear that the petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur were in possession of the land when it was attached and, therefore, as per sub section (4) of section 145 CrPC, the Magistrate should have ordered for handing over the possession of the disputed land to them. Mr Kulwant Singh has also invited attention of the Court towards Khasra Girdawari while contending that the petitioners were in possession of the disputed land on the day when the same was attached. He has also contended that the petitioners had purchased this land way back in the year 1979 from Harbai and since then, they are in possession of the land. It is also contended that Harbai had filed a criminal case against them alleging forgery regarding preparation of some power of attorney. He has also contended that the petitioners had purchased this land way back in the year 1979 from Harbai and since then, they are in possession of the land. It is also contended that Harbai had filed a criminal case against them alleging forgery regarding preparation of some power of attorney. However, in the said criminal case, the petitioners were acquitted by the competent criminal court and looking to all these facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioners were in possession of the land on the day when the disputed land was attached, however, the trial court as well as the revisional court have ignored this aspect of the matter and illegally passed the impugned orders. 6. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur has prayed that the orders passed by the courts below may be set aside and the trial court may be directed to pass an order of handing over the possession of the disputed land to the petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur. 7. Per contra, Mr G.R.Punia, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr Rajendra Prasad appearing for petitioner-Harbai has argued that in the complaint filed by SHO before the trial court on 28.03.2014 for initiating the proceedings under section 145 CrPC, it is clearly stated that the petitioner-Harbai is in possession of the disputed land and Iqbal Singh, Jaswant Kaur and some other persons were threatening to forcibly enter into it. It is contended that when the SHO himself has clearly stated in the application under section 145 CrPC before the trial court that the petitioner-Harbai is in possession of the disputed land, the trial court should have passed an order for handing over the possession of the disputed land to petitioner-Harbai. 8. Mr Punia has also argued that it is an admitted position that civil suits filed by both the parties are pending adjudication in the civil court and looking to this fact only, the proceedings under section 145 CrPC are liable to be dropped. It is contended that though the trial court as well as the revisional court have taken note of this fact that civil suits filed by both the parties are pending adjudication before the civil court, yet both the courts below have illegally passed the impugned orders. 9. It is contended that though the trial court as well as the revisional court have taken note of this fact that civil suits filed by both the parties are pending adjudication before the civil court, yet both the courts below have illegally passed the impugned orders. 9. In support of above contentions, Mr Punia has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 1504 as well as of this Court in Kanyabai & Ors. v. Prahlad & Ors., 1998 Cr.L.R.[Raj.] 119 . 10. Mr Punia has further argued that the trial court without satisfying itself regarding existence of emergency has passed the order of attachment. It is further contended that mere case of apprehension of breach of peace is distinguishable from a case of emergency as contemplated under section 145 CrPC but in the present case, the trial court, without there being any material available on record regarding any threat of breach of peace, has passed the order of attachment. In support of his contention, Mr Punia has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttrakhand & Ors., 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1183 . 11. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the record of the trial court. 12. The trial court while passing the order dated 01.08.2014 has taken into consideration the application filed by the SHO under section 145 CrPC as well as the attachment report prepared by him on 29.03.2014. After taking into consideration the said documents, the trial court has observed that on 28.03.2014, the SHO had mentioned that the petitioner-Harbai is in possession of the land, however, on 29.03.2014, he had not mentioned in the attachment report that from whom the possession of the disputed land was taken over. The trial court has further observed that as per averments of the application filed by the SHO, the petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur are trying to take over the possession of the disputed land as they have been acquitted by the competent criminal court from the charges of forgery and cheating but on the very next day, he had issued notices to Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur to remove their belongings from the disputed land. It is also observed that from the evidence produced on behalf of the parties, it cannot be decided which of the parties was in possession of the disputed land when the same was attached. 13. The trial court has taken into consideration the statement of witness Rajya Singh son of Mohan Singh produced on behalf of petitioner-Harbai, wherein he has clearly stated that the disputed land was purchased by her mother Sukhdev Kaur from petitioner- Harbai and he is in possession of the land on the strength of Ikrarnama. The trial court has observed that witness of the petitioner- Harbai has claimed possession over the disputed land, therefore, it cannot be concluded that she was in possession of the land on the day when the land was attached. 14. So far as petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur are concerned, the trial court has observed that they have failed to produce reliable evidence to prove that they were in possession of the disputed land when it was attached on 29.03.2014. The trial court has also observed that Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur have not produced oral evidence, however, produced documentary evidence such as Khasra Girdawri and Water Irrigation Slips and on the basis of those documents, it cannot be concluded that at the time of attachment, they were in possession of the land in dispute. 15. The trial court has specifically observed that the SHO has failed to mention in the attachment report that from which of the parties, he has taken over the possession of the land and, therefore, in such circumstances, it is not possible to give any finding regarding the possession of any of the parties on the disputed land when the same was attached. The trial court has further observed that the civil suits preferred on behalf of both the parties are pending in the civil court and, therefore, the attachment of the disputed land be continued till the decision of the civil court. 16. The trial court has further observed that the civil suits preferred on behalf of both the parties are pending in the civil court and, therefore, the attachment of the disputed land be continued till the decision of the civil court. 16. The revisional court, after taking into consideration the above fact situation and the fact that both the parties are trying to possess the land by any means, has observed that at present the disputed land is worth crores of rupees and as per the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and SHO, Police Station, Nai Mandi Gharsana, both the parties are ready to fight with each other, there is all possibility that the peace would be breached if either of the parties puts into possession. The revisional court has observed that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has explained the circumstances regarding the emergent situation and has thereafter passed the order impugned. The revisional court, after observing this, has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners. 17. Having considered the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that when both the parties have failed to establish that either of them was in possession of the land in question when the same was attached and the trial court has not been satisfied regarding the status of the possession of the parties and particularly when civil suits filed by both the parties are pending, it has rightly ordered for continuing the attachment of the property till arrival of the decision of the civil court. 18. It is also noticed that the SHO, Police Station, Nai Mandi, Gharsana has failed to mention in the attachment memo that from which party, he has taken over the possession of the disputed land on 29.03.2014. Though in the complaint dated 28.03.2014, he has mentioned that petitioner- Harbai was in possession of the land but on the very next day, in the attachment report, he has mentioned that the belongings and cattle of Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur were their on the disputed land. He even issued a notice to Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur to remove the said belongings and cattle from the disputed land. The parties have also failed to produce reliable evidence to prove their possession over the land in question. He even issued a notice to Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur to remove the said belongings and cattle from the disputed land. The parties have also failed to produce reliable evidence to prove their possession over the land in question. It is also clear from the material available on record that both the rival parties are desperate to take the possession of the land by any means which worth crores of rupees and this fact is enough to conclude that there is all possibility of breach of peace if any of the parties puts into possession of the land in question. 19. Admittedly, petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur have filed a suit for specific performance against Harbai praying for directing her to execute the contract agreement executed way back in 1979 and the petitioner-Harbai has filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed executed in favour of Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur and others on the basis of power of attorney of her. 20. In view of the fact that both the suits filed by the parties concerned are pending adjudication, the trial court has not committed any illegality in keeping the attachment of the disputed land continue till arrival of the decision of the civil court. 21. In view of the above noted circumstances, the order passed by the trial court, is in consonance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 146 CrPC. 22. In Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dupbey (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "We clarify that we are not stating that in every case where a civil suit is filed, Section 145 proceedings would never lie. It is only in cases where civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned can be applied for and granted by the civil court that proceedings under Section 145 should not be allowed to continue. This is because the civil court is competent to decide the question of title as well as possession between the parties and the orders of the civil Court would be binding on the Magistrate." 23. In the present case, none of the parties has filed suit for declaration of title or for possession against each other. This is because the civil court is competent to decide the question of title as well as possession between the parties and the orders of the civil Court would be binding on the Magistrate." 23. In the present case, none of the parties has filed suit for declaration of title or for possession against each other. As observed earlier, petitioners-Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur have filed suit for specific performance against Harbai and petitioner- Harbai has filed suit for cancellation of sale-deed against Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Kaur. In such circumstances, the above cited decision is of no help to the petitioner- Harbai. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors . (supra) has held as under: "13. The ingredients necessary for passing an order under Section 145 (1) of the Code would not automatically attract for the attachment of the property. Under Section 146, a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists before he passes an order of attachment. A case of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 of the Code, has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of the peace. The Magistrate, before passing an order under Section 146, must explain the circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency. In other words, to infer a situation of emergency, there must be a material on record before Magistrate when the submission of the parties filed, documents produced or evidence adduced." 25. As observed earlier in the present case, the Magistrate has taken into consideration the report of the SHO and thereafter has given a clear finding that both the parties are desperate to take over the possession of the disputed property worth crores of rupees by any means. The trial court before passing the impugned order has explained the circumstances why it thinks it to be a case of emergency while taking into consideration the material available on record. In such circumstances, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case have been fully complied with by the trial court. 26. The trial court before passing the impugned order has explained the circumstances why it thinks it to be a case of emergency while taking into consideration the material available on record. In such circumstances, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case have been fully complied with by the trial court. 26. In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find any merit in these petitions and this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 01.08.2014 and the revisional court has also not committed any illegality in affirming the same vide order dated 30.08.2014. 27. Hence, there is no force in these criminal misc. petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. 28. Stay petitions also stand dismissed.Record be sent back forthwith. *******