ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Koderma in Revision Case No. 01 of 2009 whereby the order dated 03.10.2008 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Koderma in Case No. 15 of 2007 under section 145 of the Cr.P.C has been set aside. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was filed by the petitioner under section 145(1) of Cr.P.C before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Koderma which was registered as Case No. 15 of 2007 alleging that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner and vide order dated 03.10.2008, the Executive Magistrate, Koderma disposed of the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C declaring the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. Aggrieved thereby, the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 preferred revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma which was registered as Revision No. 01 of 2009 and vide order dated 27.08.2009, the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Koderma allowed the revision by setting aside the order dated 03.10.2008 passed in Case No. 15 of 2007. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below failed to take into consideration that the petitioner had been able to prove his possession over the land in question. In a proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C., there is no scope to examine the correctness of right, title or interest in property, rather such proceeding is meant for adjudicating the possession of the respective parties over the same. The evidence led by the parties clearly established that the petitioner was in possession over the land in question and in such circumstances, the Revisional Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the Executive Magistrate. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that the Revisional Court while setting aside the order of the Executive Magistrate, Koderma, has duly appreciated the evidences led by of the parties and thus the same needs no interference under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that if the petitioner claims any right, title and interest over the land in question, he may file an appropriate suit before the civil court. The petitioner has failed to prima facie prove his possession over the land in question and as such the Revisional Court has rightly reversed the finding of the Executive Magistrate, Koderma. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order dated 27.08.2009 wherein the learned court below has elaborately discussed the evidences led by the parties before the Executive Magistrate, Koderma in support of their respective claim. It has been observed by the Revisional Court that on the one hand the first party-the petitioner was claiming possession over the disputed land on the strength of an agreement purported to be executed by one Vyas Singh and on the other hand, the second party (opposite party nos. 2 and 3) was claiming that Vyas Singh has executed sale deed in his favour and the said fact was supported by the petitioner Jay Deo Singh in his cross-examination as also by Vyas Singh who appeared as second party witness no. 1. So far the possession of the members of the second party over the disputed land is concerned, the second party witness nos. 3 and 4 stated that Dwarika Narain Mehta is in possession of the disputed land and the said fact was not rebutted in the cross- examination. The learned revisional court also found the evidence of second party witness no. 2 reliable so far the possession of the second party over the said land is concerned as the said witness deposed that he was the Bataidar of Vyas Singh and after selling the land in favour of Dwarika Narain Mehta, he had left his Bataidari and Dwarika Narain Mehta came in actual physical possession over the land in dispute. The learned revisional court has specifically held in para 8 that none of the witnesses, produced on behalf of the first party, stated about anything specific about the possession of the first party over the land in dispute, rather their evidences were general in nature. Only two documents i.e agreement and one affidavit of Vyas Singh were filed by the first party, however the same did not reveal the actual physical possession of the first party upon the disputed land. 7. Only two documents i.e agreement and one affidavit of Vyas Singh were filed by the first party, however the same did not reveal the actual physical possession of the first party upon the disputed land. 7. Since, the learned revisional court while setting aside the order dated 03.10.2008 passed by the Executive Magistrate-cum-S.D.M, In-charge, Koderma has properly scrutinized the evidences of the parties so far as the physical possession upon the disputed land is concerned, I find no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is dismissed. It is however made clear that the observations made by this Court or the revisional court will be confined to the possession of the members of the second party upon the disputed land for the purpose of Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and any observation of the revisional court touching the right and title of the contesting parties shall not affect their respective cases before the civil court of competent jurisdiction.