:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 171 OF 2007 M/s. Tyabji Estates Pvt. Ltd. ..Applicant Vs. Abid Bahadur Chaudhary & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Kafil Khan for applicant. Mr. R.P. Ojha for respondent no.1. Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. Dated: July 30, 2008. Dated: July 30, 2008. Dated: July 30, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Khan the learned counsel for the applicant-company. The applicant had filed C.C.No. 13/N/2002 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. against the present respondent no.1 and while the said case was pending, Suit NO. 1558 of 2004 for declaration and injunction came to be filed on the Original Side of this Court in respect of the very same property which was a subject matter of :2: C.C.No.13/N/2002. From the said Suit, Appeal No. 135 of 2006 in Notice of Motion No. 34 of 2005 had come up before the Division Bench on the Original Side and on 5/4/2006 the appeal was admitted and certain interim directions were given, including appointment of Court Receiver so as to protect the property. Under these circumstances, the present respondent no.1 filed an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to stay and/or drop the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The said application was rejected. 2. The respondent no.1 approached the Sessions Court of Greater Mumbai by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 979 of 2006 which came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 4/12/2006 and hence this revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. 3. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No. 135 of 2006 arising from Suit No. 1558 of :3: 2004 in respect of the very same property and noted that the suit was for possession and declaration of title in respect of the property which was a subject matter in the criminal complaint and this court had granted interim relief by appointing a Court Receiver for protection of the property. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, held that in such circumstances the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. need not be allowed to be continued. The learned Sessions Judge also noted that in the year 2002, when the police had apprehended breach of peace due to disputes between the parties, the same situation did not exit when this court had appointed Court Receiver and granted interim relief. As per the learned Sessions Judge it was very unlikely that any incident giving rise to breach of peace would occur in the present of the security guards posted on the suit property. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the decision in the case of Amresh Tiwari vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey [2000 Cri.L.J. 2226] and held that when the suit was pending for declaration of title and possession of the suit property, the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.c. need not be allowed to be continued. I am, therefore, :4: satisfied that no fault could be found with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order. 4. The Criminal Revision Application, therefore, fails and the same is hereby rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)