JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to allow the above Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the order, dated 24.07.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.207 of 2018 on the file of the Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Arni, 1st respondent herein.) 1.This Revision Case is filed by the 'B' party to the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of the learned Divisional Magistrate, Arni, dated 24.07.2018, in and by which, the learned Magistrate had ordered that until partition is effected in accordance with law, 'B' party should not enter the common properties which are in the possession of 'A' party and create a law and order situation and if 'B' party violates the said order, the criminal proceedings will be initiated. 2. A perusal of the material records produced on behalf of either side, the following facts emerged in this case:- The property in question was originally a subject matter of O.S.No.47 of 1997, in which, a compromise decree was passed, whereby, the subject matter property was assigned to one Ravi and others belonging to the same family and that they are the joint owners of the property. Thereafter, by release deeds, dated 14.02.2014 and 20.06.2018, some of the shareholders have released their rights in favour of the third respondent, being the 'A' party, in the proceedings. A suit is also pending between the parties in respect of the same subject matter property in O.S.No.163 of 2017 before the District Munsif, Arni. Under the said circumstances, on the petition submitted by the 'A' party, proceedings were initiated and the order impugned in the Revision Case was passed on 24.07.2018. 3. However, the 'B' party had filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Arni and by an order, dated 24.09.2018, the Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tahsildar, Arni. Against the said order, though initially a Revision Case was filed before this Court by the respondents 3 and 4, they withdrew the Revision Case and filed a review petition before the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai challenging the order. Against the said order, though initially a Revision Case was filed before this Court by the respondents 3 and 4, they withdrew the Revision Case and filed a review petition before the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai challenging the order. However, thereafter, the third and fourth respondents once again filed Crl.R.C.No.1125 of 2019 before this Court and by an order, dated 18.08.2021, the said Revision Case is allowed holding that there is no objection of any appeal against the order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if at all, any party is aggrieved, the aggrieved party should only file a Revision Case before this Court. Therefore, by the said order, dated 18.08.2021, the order of the learned Taluk Magistrate, dated 24.07.2018 stood revived and therefore has observed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1125 of 2019, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the 'B' party. In the meanwhile, a suit for partition is also filed and is pending between the parties in O.S.No.25 of 2021 on the file of the Arni Additional District Court in respect of the subject matter property. 4. Heard Mr.V.Sanjevee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2; Mr.R.Kulandaivelu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4; M/s.Ajitha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6. 5. The primary contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even as on date of initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, O.S.No.163 of 2017 was pending on the file of the District Munsif, Arni. Any party who claims exclusive possession of the joint family property, ought to have moved the Civil Court for protecting the said possession and in the absence of any interim injunction, pending the suit, proceedings under Section 145 the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be the answer. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that initially, when the suit for injunction is pending from the year 2017 and subsequently, now partition suit is also being pending, there was no scope for the Taluk Magistrate to either initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the said order of injunction which is granted by the Taluk Magistrate can continue any more. 6. 6. Per contra, Mr.R.Kulandaivelu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that the earliest suit in O.S.No.47 of 1997 is not a lis between 'A' and 'B' party, but, on behalf of the larger family. However, even as per the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4, there is no quarrel that the 'B' party also has a share in the property. But, however, relying upon the judgment of this Court in A.Dhaveethu and Ors. Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai District and Ors.MANU/TN/0799/2016, he would submit that once the learned Magistrate found that there is a likely breach of peace, the order has been duly passed after hearing 'A' and 'B' parties and therefore, he would submit that the order passed by the Taluk Magistrate is in order. He would submit that the partition suit was filed only subsequent to the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He would submit that the right in respect of the property or the concept of joint possession between co-owners are not the concern of the Taluk Magistrate, but, who is in actual use and maintenance of such status quo without leading to a law and order situation is the concern for the Taluk Magistrate for the exercise of power under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the instant case, since there was a likely breach of peace, the order has been rightly passed. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would also support the said contention and would submit that the order is very much sustainable in law. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of either side and perused the material records of this case. The question is no longer 1 MANU/TN/0799/2016 res integra having dealt with by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.) Vs. Suresh Das (2020) 1 SCC 1 and it is useful to extract the paragraph No.299(i) and 299(ii) of the said judgment which reads as follows:- 299. Where a suit is instituted for possession or for declaration of title before a competent civil court, the proceedings under Section 145 should not continue. This Court has analysed the above proposition of law in the following cases: 299.1. Where a suit is instituted for possession or for declaration of title before a competent civil court, the proceedings under Section 145 should not continue. This Court has analysed the above proposition of law in the following cases: 299.1. In Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey [Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey, (2000) 4 SCC 440 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 806] , S.N. Variava, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench of this Court held thus : (SCC p. 445, para 12) “12. … The law on this subject-matter has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. [Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v.State of U.P., (1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 98] In this case it has been held as follows : (SCC pp. 428-29, para 2) ‘2. … When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. There is no 2 (2020) 1 SCC 1 scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. … parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and 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. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue….’” 299.2. The Court in Amresh Tiwari [Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey, (2000) 4 SCC 440 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 806] rejected the submission that the principle in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. [Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., (1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 98] will apply only after the civil court has adjudicated on the issue : (SCC p. 445, para 13) “13. We are unable to accept the submission that the principles laid down in Ram Sumer case [Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., (1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 98] would only apply if the civil court has already adjudicated on the dispute regarding the property and given a finding. In our view Ram Sumer case [Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., (1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 98] is laying down that multiplicity of litigation should be avoided as it is not in the interest of the parties and public time would be wasted over meaningless litigation. On this principle it has been held that when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of the dispute, the parallel proceedings i.e. Section 145 proceedings should not continue.”" Therefore, it would be clear that when the matter is pending before the Civil Court, it is only the Civil Court which has the jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction and the parties, having failed to get an order of injunction before the Civil Court, cannot invoke the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. In any event, now, subsequently, a suit for partition is also filed. If 'A' party pleads that he is in exclusive possession or want to preserve any status quo, it is for him to approach the competent civil Court before which two suits are now pending. In that view thereof, the exercise of power after the institution of the civil suit was improper and therefore, I have no hesitation in interfering with the order of the first respondent. 9. The Criminal Revision Case is therefore allowed on the following terms:- (i) The order of the first respondent, dated 24.07.2018 in C.C.No.207 of 2018 is set aside; (ii) However, the respondents 3 and 4 or any other party shall be at liberty to move the civil Court in either one of the two suits or in both the suits by way of a proper interim relief in accordance with law for protection of their rights in any manner whatsoever and upon such application being made, the concerned civil Court shall entertain the same and decide the same in accordance with law. (iii) Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.10175 of 2022 is closed.