ORDER 1. This application under section 528 of BNSS has been filed against the order dated 18/11/2024 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge Basoda, District Vidisha in Criminal Revision No.11/2023 by which the order dated 3.3.2023 passed by SDM, Basoda in Case No.7/criminal/145/2022, which was passed under section 146 of Cr.P.C. by attaching the disputed property has been affirmed. 2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that an Istgasa was filed by police alleging the possibility of breach of peace. SDM while passing order under section 146 of Cr.P.C. did not record that there is any urgency or possibility of breach of peace and has passed an order of attachment and, therefore, the aforesaid order is a by product by non-application of effect. It is further submitted that the civil suit is pending between the parties and, therefore, in the light of judgment passed by the High Court of Nanital in the case of Rameshwar Havelia v. Asian Agro Farms India Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2009 CriLJ 2753 has held that proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. are not maintainable and parties can approach the civil Court. Respondents have already approached the civil Court and there is nothing on record that any order of status quo has been passed. 3. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. When arguments were initiated by counsel for applicant, then a simple question was put to counsel for applicant with regard to status and the nature of relationship between applicant as well as respondents. It was submitted by Shri Shrama that applicant is the vendor who has allegedly sold the property in dispute to respondents by multiple different sale-deeds. Although, it was expected from the applicant himself that he should have placed those sale-deeds on record, but deliberately it was not filed. However, sale-deeds have been placed on record by respondents. From the sale-deeds, it is clear that there is a clear recital that possession of land has been delivered to respondents, who are the purchasers. Although, it was expected from the applicant himself that he should have placed those sale-deeds on record, but deliberately it was not filed. However, sale-deeds have been placed on record by respondents. From the sale-deeds, it is clear that there is a clear recital that possession of land has been delivered to respondents, who are the purchasers. However, counsel for applicant refused to comment upon the sale-deeds by submitting that he is not authorized to argue on the question of maintainability of proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. and he has been authorized only to argue on the order passed under section 146 of Cr.P.C. and refused to answer the query raised by this Court. 6. Be that whatever it may be. 7. Two contentions raised by counsel for applicant for challenging the order under section 146 of Cr.P.C. are as under:- (1) There is no emergency; (2) There is no application of mind: 8. Although, according to applicant, he is not authorized to argue with regard to maintainability of proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. still he tried to submit that on account of pendency of civil suit, the proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. should not have been initiated. 9. This Court is not concerned about the authority given by litigant to his counsel, but this Court is concerned about the dispute in hand and, therefore, the attempt made by Shri Sharma to attack the proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of pendency of civil suit shall also be considered. 10. Today, I.A.No.6820/2025 has been filed by respondents by way of return alongwith multiple documents. 11. All these documents are certified copies, therefore, it is clear that they are records of judicial proceedings and in fact it was expected from the applicant that he should have filed the same, but unfortunately that was not done. 12. Be that whatever it may. 13. 11. All these documents are certified copies, therefore, it is clear that they are records of judicial proceedings and in fact it was expected from the applicant that he should have filed the same, but unfortunately that was not done. 12. Be that whatever it may. 13. Istgasa No.30/2022, which was filed by police, reads as under:- ^^Jheku~ ,l-Mh-,e- eg¨n; xatckl©nk fuosnu gS fd leniqj xat ckl©nk Jheku d¢ {ks=kUrxZr vkrk gS vkt fnukad xzke leniqj esa lqfer çdk'k tSu d¢ [ksr esa vukosnd iq"isUæ firk fuÒZ; flag nkaxh mez 26 o"kZ ,oa fuÒZ; flag firk xaxkjke nkaxh mez 51 o"kZ fuoklhx.k leniqj mldh l¨;kchu dh Qly dkV jgs FksA lqfer çdk'k tSu ,oa mudk yM+dk oSÒo tSu d¢ }kjk euk djus ij mä n¨u¨a y¨x xkyh xqIrkj dj ekjihV djus mrk: g¨ x, rÒh iqfyl igqaph iqfyl oky¨a us vkj¨ihx.k¨a d¨ dkQh le>kus dk ç;kl fd;k r¨ vkj¨ih fuÒZ; flag nkaxh }kjk vius Åij feV~Vh dk rsy Mky fy;k ,oa vkx yxkus dh èkedh nsus yxk vxj vkj¨ihx.k¨a d¨ e©d¢ ij èkkjk 151 tk- Q©- esa fxjrkj ugÈ fd, x, g¨rs r¨ vo'; gh cM+h ÄVuk ÄfVr dj nsrs Fkkus ij n¨u¨a d¨ fo#) bLrxklk Øekad 30@2022 èkkjk 151] 107] 116 ¼3½ tk- Q©- dk rS;kj fd;k x;k ftUgsa U;k;ky; is'k fd;k tkosxkA^^ 14. Thus, it is clear that when respondents were harvesting the crop, then applicant created Rukus as a result the police also reached on the spot and tried to pacify the situation. At that time, applicant poured Kerosene oil on him and started extending threat that he would commit suicide and accordingly, it appears that accused persons were arrested under section 151 of Cr.P.C. Thus conduct of applicant speaks in volumes about the possibility of breach of peace. Therefore, the police was right in initiating the proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. complaining the possibility of breach of peace. That is not the end of the matter. 15. SDM Basoda, District Vidisha by order dated 3.3.2023 passed in Case No.7/criminal/145/2022 had attached the property. FIR in crime No.173/2025 has been registered at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha on 12/03/2025 to the effect that order dated 3.3.2023 passed by SDM Basoda, District Vidisha was challenged by applicant in criminal revision, which was dismissed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge Basoda, District Vidisha in Criminal Revision No.11/2023 on 18/11/2025. FIR in crime No.173/2025 has been registered at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha on 12/03/2025 to the effect that order dated 3.3.2023 passed by SDM Basoda, District Vidisha was challenged by applicant in criminal revision, which was dismissed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge Basoda, District Vidisha in Criminal Revision No.11/2023 on 18/11/2025. In spite of that applicant had tried to harvest the standing crop and it was specifically mentioned that applicant is violating the order dated 3.3.2023, which was affirmed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge Basoda in criminal revision No.11/2023 by its order dated 18/11/2024. Thus, it appears that applicant has no respect for the law. Even after alienating the property, he is trying to create Rukus in peaceful possession of receiver. Thus, it is a case where the emergency was writ large on its own face, warranting an order under section 146 of Cr.P.C. 16. So far as the submission with regard to non-maintainability of proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. are concerned, it is true that the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 1985 SC 472 , it is desirable that the parties to the litigation must approach the civil Court for obtaining interim orders. 17. In the present case, the respondents have also filed a suit for declaration of title and an application for grant of interim injunction has been filed which is pending. On the face of arguments, it appeared that arguments advanced by counsel for applicant are very impressive but on the deeper scrutiny of the same, it is clear that applicant after having sold the property is trying to take advantage of technicalities in order to deprive the vendors from enjoying the fruits of the same. If the applicant was of the view that sale-deeds executed by him are null and void, then he should have approached civil Court for declaration of his title, but he did not do that and in spite of handing over the possession of property in dispute of purchasers, he is trying to illegally dispossess the purchasers/respondents. The unruly conduct of applicant on the ground was also reflected in the manner in which arguments were advanced by the counsel for applicant. 18. The unruly conduct of applicant on the ground was also reflected in the manner in which arguments were advanced by the counsel for applicant. 18. Since, the applicant after having sold property to respondents had tried to illegally dispossess the respondents and also went to the extent of threatening to the police of committing suicide after pouring Kerosene oil on him and in spite of an order of attachment by SDM, which was affirmed by Sessions Court, applicant is still trying to cut the standing crops, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference. 19. Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by applicant within a period of one month in the Registry of this Court, failing which, not only the Principal Registrar of this Court shall initiate proceedings for recovery of cost, but shall also register a case for contempt of Court.