ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. This criminal misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Revision No.43/2016, upholding the order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Special Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Case No.1/2016, allowing the application filed under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while passing an order of attachment. 2. The complainant had filed this complaint before the SHO, Police Station, Sirohi with the allegations pertaining to a particular piece of plot measuring 30 x 60 feet. It was alleged that the plot was under the ownership of one Faqeer Mohammed and purchased by the complainant vide an agreement dated 20.09.2003. It was also alleged that the petitioner was an employee of the complainant and was therefore, given a temporary place to reside in the said plot, and when the employment was terminated and the complainant sought vacation of the plot, a dispute arose between her and the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if there was an illegal possession and rival claims, then also, the powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could not be exercised to decide the claim between the two contesting parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there was no immediate apprehension of breach of peace recorded by the learned court below, and therefore, the power under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could not have been invoked. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards the directions given by the revisionary court, whereby the determination of title has been made a focal point, while passing such an order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent however, has drawn the attention of this Court towards the findings arrived at by both the learned courts below, whereby it has been recorded that there was a clear dispute between both the parties, which could result into law and order situation and once such finding has been arrived at by the learned court below, invocation of Section 145 Cr.P.C. was appropriate. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent further pointed out that it has been recorded by the learned court below that both the parties could not prove their possession, and since possession was disputed, therefore, the learned court below has drawn the conclusion of interim measures to be taken for securing the property and also to ensure that no law and order situation arises. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent also drew the attention of this Court towards the report submitted by the police, in which the complete details of the plot in question was narrated. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter, relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2013) 3 SCC 366 , relevant paras 6, 9 & 11 of which are as follows:- "6. We are of the view that the SDM has not properly appreciated the scope of Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. The objection of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is merely to maintain law and order and to prevent breach of peace by maintaining one or other of the parties in possession, and not for evicting any person from possession. The scope of enquiry under Section 145 is in respect of actual possession without reference to the merits or claim of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute. 9. The above order would indicate that the SDM has, in our view, wrongly invoked the powers under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. Under Section 146(1), a Magistrate can pass an order of attachment of the subject of dispute if it be a case of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was in such possession, or he cannot decide as to which of them was in possession. Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace and Section 146 cannot be separated from Section 145 Cr.P.C. It can only be read in the context of Section 145 Cr.P.C. If after the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate is of the opinion that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject of dispute at the time of the order passed under Section 145(1) or is unable to decide which of the parties was in possession, he may attach the subject of dispute, until a competent court has determined the right of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof. 11. We find from this case that there is nothing to show that an emergency exists so as to invoke Section 146(1) and to attach the property in question. A case of emergency, as per Section 146 of the Code has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of peace. When the reports indicate that one of the parties is in possession, rightly or wrongly, the Magistrate cannot pass an order of attachment on the ground of emergency. The order acknowledges the fact that Ashok Kumar has started construction in the property in question, therefore, possession of property is with the appellant Ashok Kumar, whether it is legal or not, is not for the SDM to decide." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that since the order of the learned court below had recorded the complaint, in which the possession of the petitioner was not disputed, therefore, no indulgence by any interim measure ought to have been granted. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case along with the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that it is not disputed by the complainant herself that the petitioner was in the possession of the said premises, without prejudice to the fact whether such possession was lawful or not. Once the possession was apparent in the complaint itself, as recorded by the learned court below, then eviction of the petitioner without drawing conclusive proceedings in accordance with law, would not be in the best interest of justice. 11. Once the possession was apparent in the complaint itself, as recorded by the learned court below, then eviction of the petitioner without drawing conclusive proceedings in accordance with law, would not be in the best interest of justice. 11. The proceedings of the learned court below are interim in nature, as the examination of the record of the Local Bodies was sought by the concerned courts, but the same was not on record. 12. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Revision No.43/2016 and order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Special Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Case No.1/2016 are quashed and set aside only to the extent that the possession has been sought from the petitioner and the eviction of the petitioner has been ordered. The stay application also stands disposed of. 13. It is however, made clear that the learned court below shall be completely free, without being influenced by this order, to decide the case on its own merits, after taking into consideration the record of the Local Bodies and after hearing both the parties. It is expected that the final order regarding the proceedings shall be expeditiously passed, without being influenced by this order, which entitles the petitioner not to be ousted from the premises in question, without adopting proper procedure under the law.