JUDGMENT : 1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant Anoop Keshari alias Anoop Chowdhary against State of U.P. and three others with a prayer for quashing impugned order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C. as well as impugned order dated 28.11.2019 passed u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. by the City Magistrate, Allahabad, in Case No. D-201902030007120 of 2019, Pratap Narain Mishra Vs. Anoop Keshari and others, P.S. Kotwali, District Allahabad, as well as entire proceeding of above mentioned case. 2. Learned counsel for applicant argued that the matter in question was not with regard to ownership and possession of any individual immovable property. Rather property in question is of Arya Samaj Temple having two colleges running with it and it is belonging of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P., Lucknow, under general superintendence of Sarvdeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, New Delhi, for whole of India since mid of 19th century and everybody is having right and use to worship in above temple. There occurred no apprehension of breach of peace regarding above Arya Samaj Temple because O.P. No. 2 as well as applicant use to visit and worship in above temple. The dispute was regarding office of management and O.P. No. 2 was Secretary. In the year 2017 election of office bearers took place wherein the applicant was elected as Mantri to manage the affairs of above Arya Samaj Temple and its allied subject at Allahabad. This was duly recognized by State Unit at Lucknow. Representation was made by O.P. No. 2, but it was rejected by State Level Unit. In between two cases regarding criminal breach of trust and other mismanagement of property of Society, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, was got lodged against O.P. No. 2 and one Pawan Jaiswal, wherein other co-accused preferred a proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this court, which was rejected. Then after a Special Leave Petition was filed before Apex Court where the S.L.P. was rejected. Only after this failure to have some relief, manipulation was made by O.P. No. 2 under connivance with local police as well as Executive Magistrate. Thereafter a proceeding u/s 107/116 Cr.P.C. was undertaken and on this, report for proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the City Magistrate wherein likelihood of breach of peace in Arya Samaj Temple, Chowk, Allahabad, was reported and the Magistrate in a routine way issued notices to both sides fixing a date. Thereafter a proceeding u/s 107/116 Cr.P.C. was undertaken and on this, report for proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the City Magistrate wherein likelihood of breach of peace in Arya Samaj Temple, Chowk, Allahabad, was reported and the Magistrate in a routine way issued notices to both sides fixing a date. Though, there was no apprehension of breach of peace nor it was an individual immovable property, requiring any interference by Executive Magistrate u/s 145 Cr.P.C. Moreso, a civil suit was also pending on behalf of O.P. No. 2 for determination of right of Secretaryship of Management Committee of Arya Samaj Temple, Chowk, Allahabad, and its allied property. But the learned Magistrate, without applying his judicial mind, passed the impugned order u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. Both sides appeared before the City Magistrate, therein, documents with reply were filed, wherein, it was specifically mentioned that no dispute regarding ownership or possession of immovable property of Arya Samaj Temple, Chowk, Allahabad, is there, because the Temple is under ownership of Almighty and worship of deities are done by each member belonging to Arya Samaj. The dispute was regarding office of management of Temple and it is within the domain of Assistant Registrar, Societies, as Arya Samaj Temple, Chowk, Allahabad, is a registered Society registered under Societies Registration Act. In case there arises a dispute regarding Management of the Society, it is to be referred to the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, who will decide the same. But the learned City Magistrate without making any appreciation of facts and law; by giving any reason, passed the impugned order of attachment of the Temple as well School Property of Arya Samaj Temple, Chowk, Allahabad, under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. whereby work of receivership has been assigned to consignee (supurdagar), which was not within the jurisdiction of the City Magistrate. The dispute regarding office of Management of a Society is to be resolved either by its State Unit or by Central Unit regarding its internal management or by the Assistant Registrar, Societies, under the Societies Registration Act and in case of its failure, reference is to be made under Rule 4 of the Societies Registration Act to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, who will decide as per rules given in the Societies Registration Act. But the learned City Magistrate did not give any reason and without applying its judicial mind passed the impugned order of attachment u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C. and appointed a receiver. It was a mechanical order. It is apparently under abuse of process of law. Hence this application with above prayer. 3. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 vehemently opposed the application with contention that O.P. No. 2 is elected Secretary of Committee of Management of Arya Samaj Temple, Chowk, Allahabad, and he was rightly in the office of Management, for which, effort was made by applicant for dispossessing him. Owing to which apprehension of breach of peace was reported by the police to the Executive Magistrate. The jurisdiction u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. was invoked by the City Magistrate, Allahabad, following the order of attachment u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C. It was well in accordance with law with no abuse of process of law. However, it is being admitted that the property is of Arya Samaj Temple, district Unit Allahabad, open for worship to everybody. The property of Arya Samaj Temple, unit Allahabad, is property of Almighty. Hence, there is no dispute regarding ownership and possession of the property. Rather the dispute is regarding office of management of the Unit. If this Court directs the City Magistrate for disposal of proceeding then O.P. No. 2 is having no objection. 4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the application. 5. Section 145 Cr.P.C. provides that whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute, likely to cause a breach of the peace, exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. 6. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs State Of U.P. and others, (1985) 1 SCC 427 has propounded that when a civil litigation is pending in regard to some immovable property wherein question of possession is involved, the parties in possession to approach civil court for interim order such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property, during pendency of suit, then there is no jurisdiction for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. The order made under section 145 Cr.P.C. deals only with the factum of possession of party as on a particular date. It confers no title to remain in possession of disputed property against any decision of civil court. 7. Admittedly, immovable property in dispute is a Arya Samaj Temple, Chowk, Allahabad. Meaning thereby it is a property of religious endowment. Admittedly, the Society, being a registered Society under Societies Registration Act, is having its full control by its Divisional Unit for whole of Division, State Unit of Lucknow for whole of the State of U.P. and National Unit Delhi for whole of the nation. Meaning thereby it is not a property of either of the party. It is a property dedicated to Almighty and open for worship by all. Hence no question of dispute regarding ownership or possession of the property is there. The dispute is only regarding office of Management of the Society. In the impugned order, the Magistrate, for initiating proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C., has written about dispute regarding ownership and possession of the property, which is apparently against facts on record. This reveals that the Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has not applied its judicial mind. This order is with no reason. Whereas initial order is to be passed with reason, as has been mentioned in section 145 Cr.P.C. The condition precedent for passing order by the Magistrate is that the Magistrate has to give proper reasons for his satisfaction for invoking jurisdiction u/s 145 Cr.P.C. But in the impugned order there is no reason at all. On this score only the impugned order u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. is not to be sustained. 8. Regarding second impugned order u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C., the parties appeared before the Magistrate, they filed their reply and documents in support of their contentions. On this score only the impugned order u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. is not to be sustained. 8. Regarding second impugned order u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C., the parties appeared before the Magistrate, they filed their reply and documents in support of their contentions. What were the documents, how it was appreciated, what questions were involved, what were facts of documents, what were contentions of parties have not been mentioned in the impugned order. It itself shows that the Executive Magistrate, while passing impugned orders u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. as well as u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C., has not followed the mandate of Legislature given under sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. Order of this character can never be said to be an order after application of judicial mind. There is principle of legislative expectancy that when a dispute is there, both sides are filing their reply and documents in support of their claim then the man, who is making decision, has to mention both sides' contentions and the documents filed by them in support of their respective claim, then the reasons for taking the decision and then only the order can be held to be on application of judicial mind. Hence both the impugned orders are not to be sustained, as such they are under abuse of process of law. 9. The dispute regarding office of management of Society, registered under Societies Registration Act, can never be held as a dispute regarding ownership and possession of immovable property and for this Legislature has given Societies Registration Act with rules framed there under. Assistant Registrar has the authority to decide the dispute regarding management of office of Society. In case of its failure, reference is to be made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area under Rule of the above Act for adjudication. But by these impugned orders, under challenge, the City Magistrate has decided to take over possession of the property and has appointed some receiver for making management of the above property, which was of Almighty having no dispute regarding its ownership and possession. Under garb of attachment order, receiver has been appointed, which power never vests with the Executive Magistrate, particularly when a civil suit has already been filed by O.P. No. 2. There is a chapter under Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of receiver to protect the property in dispute. Hence this application merits to be allowed. 10. Under garb of attachment order, receiver has been appointed, which power never vests with the Executive Magistrate, particularly when a civil suit has already been filed by O.P. No. 2. There is a chapter under Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of receiver to protect the property in dispute. Hence this application merits to be allowed. 10. The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and both the impugned orders passed by the City Magistrate u/s 145(1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C. are hereby quashed with this specific mention that an officer of City Magistrate rank i.e. a senior Executive officer should be careful in future in making such type of decision without any reason in order. 11. The file is being remanded back to the Magistrate concerned to make decision in accordance with law, provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure along with precedents of Apex Court and this court.