JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2006, passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Revision No. 1(2)/1999 setting aside the order dated 15.02.1999 passed by the learned SDM(E), Silchar in Case No. 351M/1995 and directing restoration of possession of the disputed land in favour of the opposite party. The opposite party herein filed a complaint u/s 145 CrPC on 02.08.1995 before the learned SDM(S) alleging therein that she was forcibly dispossessed from the disputed land by the present petitioners (opposite party in 145 proceeding). The learned SDM on the basis of the petition and on consideration of the police report was pleased to draw up a proceeding u/s 145 CrPC vide Case No. 351M/1995 and the disputed land was put under attachment. Subsequently, on 11.11.1995 the proceeding was dropped on the ground that it was not maintainable since the dispute was civil in nature but the order was set aside in revision by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar passed in Crl. Rev. No. 15(4)/1995 directing the learned SDM to dispose of the proceeding by affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. 2. Both the parties to the case adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. Learned SDM vide his order dated 15.02.1999 upon consideration of the evidence on record oral as well as documentary declared possession of the disputed land in favour of the revision petitioners (opposite party in the 145 proceeding) against which revision was preferred before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar by the aggrieved petitioners and the revisional court vide his order dated 21.09.1999 passed in Crl. Rev. No. 1(2)/1999 set aside the order of the learned SDM. 3. Being aggrieved, the second party in the proceeding preferred revision before the High Court challenging the order dated 21.08.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar and the learned Single Judge of this court vide his order dated 06.05.2004 remanded the case to the revisional Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law directing the court to pass appropriate order after considering the materials available on record. 4. After remand of the case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar and the learned Single Judge of this court vide his order dated 06.05.2004 remanded the case to the revisional Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law directing the court to pass appropriate order after considering the materials available on record. 4. After remand of the case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Cachar, Silchar vide his order dated 22.12.2006 allowed the revision and impugned order dated 15.02.1999 passed by the learned SDM was set aside and the possession of the disputed land was declared in favour of the first party of the 145 proceeding. 5. Highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the revisional Court dated 22.12.2006 in Crl. Rev. No. 1(2)/1999, the second party of the proceeding have preferred this revision praying for setting aside the order so passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 6. Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also heard Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposite party. 7. The dispute between the parties has a chequered history in the sense that it has been going on since 1995 and the parties have undergone several rounds of litigations. Mr. Banik, leaned counsel for the revision petitioners refers to sub Section 1 of Section 145 of the CrPC to project that actual physical possession over the land is the main ingredient of the Section and the opposite party herein, having failed to prove her actual possession over the land, learned revisional court should not have declared possession in her favour. Since she failed to prove possession over the land, the question of her dispossession from the land would not arise at all. He also submits by referring to sub Section 4 of Section 145 that forceful and wrongful dispossession within 2 months next before the date on which the report of the police officer is received is required to be proved. 8. Supporting the order of the Revisional Court Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that actual possession of the land was with the respondent and as such no illegality has been committed by the Revisional Court in declaring possession of the land in her favour. 9. 8. Supporting the order of the Revisional Court Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that actual possession of the land was with the respondent and as such no illegality has been committed by the Revisional Court in declaring possession of the land in her favour. 9. He also contends that order of acquittal in the complaint case or acceptance of the FR by the learned Magistrate cannot be the criteria for deciding the possession or dispossession from the disputed land. The learned Executive Magistrate appears to be completely swayed by the decision of the criminal cases to come to the finding that she was not in possession of the land which must have prompted the learned Single Judge of this court to remand the case to the learned court for taking appropriate decision after considering all the materials available on record. However, from the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Cachar, Silchar after remand of the case, it appears that he has taken into consideration the entire aspects of the case and after hearing the learned counsels for both the parties he came to the finding that the respondent was in possession of the disputed land and her evidence was found to be convincing and cogent. On perusal of the evidence on record I have also found that she produced khatian f the land to show that she was in possession of the disputed land by right of purchase in the year 1981 from one Jamiruddin Kaji who sold the sole right over the land and executed the sale deed in her favour and delivered possession to her. She being a woman the disputed land was cultivated by her son Nani Bhusan Das who has also supported the evidence of his mother that he was dispossessed by the second party forcibly which is also corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. Although the opposite party claimed that they were in possession of the disputed land but failed to prove the plea. 10. However, considering the nature of dispute between the parties it appears that the same cannot be resolved in the proceeding u/s 145 of the CrPC and final adjudication is required to be given by a competent civil court and until and unless a final adjudication is made the dispute between the parties is likely to continue forever. 11. 10. However, considering the nature of dispute between the parties it appears that the same cannot be resolved in the proceeding u/s 145 of the CrPC and final adjudication is required to be given by a competent civil court and until and unless a final adjudication is made the dispute between the parties is likely to continue forever. 11. In view of above, liberty is given to the parties, if so advised approach the civil court for final adjudication of the dispute between them. At this stage I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 22.12.2006 and consequently, the revision filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. 12. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.