JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.No.1076/2019/A1, dated 19.12.2019 on the file of the 2nd respondent and allow the Revision Petition.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed, aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, dated 15.03.2022, passed in exercise of the powers under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Revision Petitioners are the ‘B' Party. The respondents 3 to 6 are the ‘A' parties. 2. The grievance of 'A' Party is that they are the owners of the subject matter building having acquired title by way of suit for specific performance. After the suit was decreed, as a matter of fact, Execution Petition is filed and the sale deed was executed in their favour regarding the entire suit property and possession of the entire property except the subject matter shop was duly handed over to them. As far as the present shop is concerned, the 'B' parties are trying to unlawfully usurp the property by creating law and order problem by creating false documents and indulging in vexatious litigation and therefore, they have rightly submitted the petition before the first respondent. 3. The claim is resisted by 'B' party stating that they are in possession of the shop, having been leased out and they have also filed a suit for permanent injunction which is pending and therefore, pending the suit, it was not incumbent upon the first respondent to have passed the order. 4. After due enquiry, the second respondent passed orders (i) declaring that the subject matter property as absolutely belonging to “A” party; (ii) ordering the 'B' party, who are occupying a commercial portion without any right, title whatsoever to vacate and hand over the property within seven days; (iii) holding that the building is in a dilapidated condition and if the 'B' party does not vacate the building within seven days, authorising 'A' party to demolish the building within fifteen days; and (iv) directing the electricity board, fire department, Police and Tahsildar to give due protection for demolition, if the 'B' party does not demolish and remove the said Jaya Bakery. 5. 5. Mr.C.S.Dhansekaran the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that when there is a Civil Suit pending between the parties, entertaining the petition, under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was erroneous in law. The second respondent had granted permanent relief of declaration and consequential eviction and thereby usurped the functions of the Civil Court, beyond the scope of its powers under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Per contra, Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 would submit that 'A' party is the lawful owner of the building. The entire building, except this shop, has been duly handed over and they are in possession of the entire building. The 'B' party have absolutely no right, title or interest and are clinging onto the property and holding the 'A' party to ransom and trying to defy his lawful right to demolish and reconstruct the property. He would further submit that apart from the powers under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are ample powers for the first respondents to order removal the 'B' party since the building is in dilapidated condition by virtue of his powers under Sections 146 and 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents would submit that it is not the case of mere breach of law and order alone. Apart from the same, the building is also in a dilapidated condition and therefore in exercise of the powers under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the powers to save the human lives which are in danger in the event of the building crashing down, the impugned order is passed and as such is in order. 8. In reply thereof to the said submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court had earlier appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who has inspected the building and from his report, it would be clear that the building is not in a dilapidated condition as projected by the 'A' party and the first respondent. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and considered the material records of the case. 10. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and considered the material records of the case. 10. The nature and scope of powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been explained and laid down in clear terms by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) Vs. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. [ (2020) 1 SCC 1 )] and it is necessary to extract paragraph Nos. 295 & 296 which read as follows: “295. Section 145 is recognised to be a branch of the preventive jurisdiction of the Magistrate. [Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 20th Edn. (2016) at p. 426.] Section 145(1) can be invoked on the satisfaction of the Magistrate that “a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists…”. The provision relates to disputes regarding possession of land or water or its boundaries which may result in breach of the peace. The function of the Magistrate is not to go into questions of title, but to meet the urgency of the situation by maintaining the party in possession. The Magistrate is empowered to call upon the parties to put in written statements in support of their claim to “actual possession”. Such an order is to be served as a summons upon the parties. The Magistrate is to peruse the statements, hear the parties and weigh the evidence, in order to ascertain who was in possession at the date of the order. The Magistrate may make that determination “if possible” to do so. Moreover, the determination is about the factum of possession on the date of the order “without reference to the merits of the claim of any of such parties to a right to possess the subject of the dispute”. These words indicate that the Magistrate does not decide or adjudicate upon the contesting rights to possess or the merits of conflicting claims. The Magistrate is concerned with determining only who was in possession on the date of the order. If possession has been wrongfully taken within two months of the order, the person so dispossessed is to be taken as the person in possession. In cases of emergency, the Magistrate can attach the subject of the dispute, pending decision. The Magistrate is concerned with determining only who was in possession on the date of the order. If possession has been wrongfully taken within two months of the order, the person so dispossessed is to be taken as the person in possession. In cases of emergency, the Magistrate can attach the subject of the dispute, pending decision. The action ultimately contemplated under Section 145 is not punitive, but preventive, and for that purpose is provisional only till a final or formal adjudication of rights is done by a competent court in the due course of law. Thus, nothing affecting the past, present and future rights of parties is contemplated under the provision. 296. The object of the provision is merely to maintain law and order and to prevent a breach of the peace by maintaining one or other of the parties in possession, which the Magistrate finds they had immediately before the dispute, until the actual right of one of the parties has been determined by a civil court. The object is to take the subject of dispute out of the hands of the disputants, allowing the custodian to protect the right, until one of the parties has established her right (if any) to possession in a civil court. [Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 20th Edn. (2016) at p. 427.] This is evident from the provisions of subsection (6) of Section 146. The Magistrate declares the party which is entitled to possession “until evicted therefrom in due course of law”. While proceeding under the first proviso, the Magistrate may restore possession to a party which has been wrongfully and forcibly dispossessed. No party can be allowed to use the provisions of Section 145 for ulterior purposes or as a substitute for civil remedies. The jurisdiction and power of the civil court cannot in any manner be hampered. [Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 20th Edn. (2016) at p. 451.]” 11. No party can be allowed to use the provisions of Section 145 for ulterior purposes or as a substitute for civil remedies. The jurisdiction and power of the civil court cannot in any manner be hampered. [Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 20th Edn. (2016) at p. 451.]” 11. It may be seen from the above, the exercise of power under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to avert any breach of peace and irrespective of the rights of the parties preserving the nature of possession as it is before the commencement of the law and order problem/breach of peace and granting a temporary relief to the parties so as to enable them to approach Civil Court and get a relief. 12. The present order impugned in this revision (i) declares the ownership of the 'A' party; (ii) grants permanent relief of eviction of 'B' party from the suit property; (iii) virtually takes over the function of the Civil Court inasmuch as the 'A' party ought to have filed an Execution Petition to take possession of this portion of the property also; (iv) does not record as to in what manner there is law and order problem and breach of peace; (v) grants irreversible relief to the parties in permitting the demolition of the building by directing the public authorities to provide protection for the same; which are all absolutely in excess of its jurisdiction. 13. As far as the invocation of powers on the ground of the building being in a dangerous condition is concerned, firstly, the said findings of the first respondent is not based on any expert report of any Engineer of P.W.D or otherwise and secondly, the report of the Advocate Commissioner, appointed by this Court, states otherwise. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the order can be otherwise sustained on the ground of the dangerous situation of the building. 14. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed on the following terms:- (i) The order of the second respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.1076/2019/A1, dated 19.12.2019 is set aside; (ii) However, the respondents 3 to 6 would be at liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance including initiating execution proceedings; (iii) Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2020 is closed.