IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7979 of 2008 1. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Prasad. 2. Madan Prasad. 3. Sanjay Kumar alias Sanjay Prasad. All sons of Late Ram Dhyan Prasad. All resident of Village-Dhum Nagar Bagicha Tola, Police Station-Nautan, District-West Champaran. …………………………………….Petitioners/Second Party. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. …………………………….........Opposite Party-First Set. 2. Awadh Kishor Prasad, son of Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of Dhum Nagar Bagicha Tola, Police Station- Nautan, District-West Champaran. ……………………Opposite Party Sedond Set/Ist Party. 3. Madhusudan Yadav, son of Chokat Yadav. 4. Vijay Prasad, son of Satya Narain Prasad. 5. Mangal Prasad. 6. Sukesh Prasad. Both sons of Khedu Mahto. 7. Sarajul Mian, son of Majeed Mian. 8. Radhe Shyam Prasad, son of Ram Narain Prasad. All resident of village-Dhum Nagar Bagicha Tola, Police Station-Nautan, District-West Champaran. …………...........Opposite Party Third Set/Second Party. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedy, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.Ps. : M/s. Umesh Kumar Verma & Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocates. ----------------------------- 6. 16.9.2011. Heard the parties. The petitioners have filed this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing 2 the order dated 3.12.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bettiah, District-West Champaran, in proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure numbered as Case No.949M of 2007, allowing the petition filed by the second set-opposite party no.2 under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and attaching the land in dispute and appointing the Officer Incharge, Nautan as Receiver. The sole argument as advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that since the Partition Suit No.41 of 2007 and Probate Case No.3 of 2006 with respect to the same land are pending in the Civil Court, therefore, the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is bad in law. The impugned order goes to show that the Sub Divisional Magistrate on hearing the parties, perusing the record and police report arrived at conclusion that regarding the land in dispute there is apprehension of serious breach of peace and, accordingly, ordered to attach the land in dispute deputing the Officer Incharge, Nautan, as receiver. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has also detailed about the pendency of partition suit and probate case in Civil Court and also about 3 the pendency of criminal case between the parties. Only the suit for possession or for declaration of title in respect of same property and where relief regarding protection of property concerned can be applied for and granted by Civil Court bars the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, I find no illegality in the impugned order to show the abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)