JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Magan Bihari (respondent no. 2) filed an application before Sub Divisional Magistrate (Shikohabad) (respondent no. 1) alleging that property no. 136 to 142 are in dilapidated condition and unless it is demolished forthwith it may cause loss of life of the general public. The learned Magistrate before whom the said application was filed got an enquiry conducted by Tahsildar, Shikohabad. He submitted enquiry report dated 14.1.2015, in which he also found the building to be in a completely dilapidated condition. He also recommended for initiating action for demolition of the building. On receipt of the said report, the learned Magistrate issued a conditional order dated 14.1.2015 requiring the petitioner to show cause. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his denial statement and pointed out that he is tenant of property no. 142 on behalf of respondent no. 2 and Original Suit No. 708 of 2014 instituted by him against the second respondent is pending. The application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the second respondent concealing these facts. He prayed for keeping the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. in abeyance during the pendency of civil suit. The learned Magistrate by order dated 17.8.2015 accepted the denial version of the petitioner. It is held that in view of pendency of the civil suit there was no justification in continuing with proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and accordingly those proceedings were abated. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent preferred Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2015. The revisional court by impugned order dated 18.2.2016 has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 17.8.2015 and directed it to consider the matter afresh, in accordance with law laid down by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 1993 (30) ACC Page 696. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is injunction operating in favour of the petitioner in the civil suit instituted by him and the revisional court erred in interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate. 3. The injunction order passed by the court in the civil suit is only to the effect that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. 3. The injunction order passed by the court in the civil suit is only to the effect that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. The revisional Court has observed that the proceedings initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. could not have been dropped merely for the reason that a civil suit is pending. It has further been observed, keeping in mind the provision of Section 137(2) that in case the Magistrate finds that there is reliable evidence in support of the denial, he is competent to stay the proceedings until the matter of the existence of such right is decided by a competent civil court. It has been noted that even in the enquiry got conducted through the Tehsildar, it transpired that the building is in dangerous condition and could cause injury to person living in the neighbourhood. It has thus been held that in such circumstances the Magistrate was not justified in abating the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality in the view taken by the revisional court, in this regard. 5. Moreover, the order of the revisional court causes no prejudice to the petitioner whose denial version has been directed to be considered by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner will have liberty to lead the evidence in support of denial version and whereafter the learned Magistrate shall pass the orders in accordance with law keeping in mind the direction given by the revisional Court. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.