ORDER : 1. Challenging the notice issued by the first respondent/learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Coimbatore North in Na. Ka. No. 2057/2017/A1 dated 16.06.2017, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: In connection with the ownership of a rice shop situated at 17-D, Inspector Bungalow Road, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District, the petitioner herein as well as the third respondent had given complaints before the second respondent police on 29.05.2017 respectively. Since the second respondent had felt that there were frequent quarrel between the petitioner and the third respondent, the case in Cr. No. 280 of 2017 under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code was registered on 02.06.2017 and referred the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore North, who is the first respondent herein on 03.06.2017. Consequently, a notice dated 16.06.2017 came to be issued by the first respondent to the petitioner as well as the third respondent herein calling upon them to appear before him for the purpose of conducting an enquiry. Aggrieved over the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the second respondent. 4. It is seen that in connection with the same dispute, a suit in O.S. No. 138 of 2017 came to be filed before the learned District Munsif, Mettupalayam by the third respondent herein. An order of interim injunction has also been granted in the said suit in favour of the third respondent. The present notice issued by the first respondent is touching upon the same dispute. 5. When a civil suit has been filed where the question of possession and title is under adjudication, it would not be appropriate for the first respondent to conduct parallel proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On a plain reading of the plaint filed in O.S. No. 138 of 2017 as well as the petition filed before this Court, it is seen that the dispute between the parties before the first respondent is purely a civil dispute and the third respondent as well as the petitioner have given it a colour of a criminal case. On a plain reading of the plaint filed in O.S. No. 138 of 2017 as well as the petition filed before this Court, it is seen that the dispute between the parties before the first respondent is purely a civil dispute and the third respondent as well as the petitioner have given it a colour of a criminal case. If at all the parties are aggrieved on the tile or possession of the subject property, it is open to them to approach the concerned Civil forum seeking for an interim relief instead of approaching the second respondent with the criminal complaints. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasioned to deal in an identical situation about the powers of the first respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code when a civil suit was pending. In a case in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1985 (1) SCC 427 , it has been held as follows: “When a civil litigation is pending for the same property wherein the question of possession is involved and the parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute, there is no justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. Therefore, the parallel proceeding should not continue and the order of the Magistrate directing initiation of such a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. must be quashed.” Also in the judgment in Mahar Jahan and Others vs. State of Delhi and Others, 2004 (13) SCC 421 , it has held as under: “The house property, which is the subject-matter of these criminal proceedings is also the subject-matter of the civil suit pending in the civil court. The question as to possession over the property or entitlement to possession would be determined by the civil court. The criminal proceedings have remained pending for about a decade. There is no propriety behind allowing these proceedings to continue in view of the parties having already approached the civil court. Whichever way proceedings under section 145 CrPC may terminate, the order of the criminal court would always be subject to decision by the civil court. The criminal proceedings have remained pending for about a decade. There is no propriety behind allowing these proceedings to continue in view of the parties having already approached the civil court. Whichever way proceedings under section 145 CrPC may terminate, the order of the criminal court would always be subject to decision by the civil court. Inasmuch as the parties are already before the civil court, it is proper to let the civil suit be decided and therein appropriate interim order be passed taking care of the grievances of the parties by making such arrangement as may remain in operation during the hearing of the civil suit. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated under section 145 CrPC are directed to be quashed. The parties are allowed liberty of approaching the civil court and of filing any application for interim relief therein although the suit is only for issuance of permanent injunction. The civil court would be the most appropriate forum to take care of the grievances of the parties and pass such interim order as would reasonably protect the interests of both the parties. The civil court may issue an ad interim injunction, may appoint a Commissioner or Receiver or may make any other interim arrangement as to possession or user of the property which is the subject-matter of proceedings in the civil court exercising the power conferred on it by Sections 94 and 151 CPC. Looking to the relationship of the parties, the civil court shall feel free to make such ad interim order as it deems fit consistently with the facts and circumstances of the case without feeling embarrassed by the limited scope of the suit which is a suit for permanent injunction and without regard to the fact whether the application for that purpose is moved by the plaintiffs or the defendant. Such an application as and when made, shall be heard and decided expeditiously.” 6. In the light of the judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the observations made by this Court, I am of the view that it would not be appropriate for the first respondent to continue with the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, notice dated 16.06.2017 made in Na. Ka. No. 2057/2017/A1 on the file of the first respondent/learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Coimbatore North is quashed. Consequently, notice dated 16.06.2017 made in Na. Ka. No. 2057/2017/A1 on the file of the first respondent/learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Coimbatore North is quashed. The parties are granted liberty to approach the Civil Court seeking for an appropriate relief. 7. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.