IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.747 of 2008 1. ABBAS ALI 2. Basir Ahmad …..Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Abdul Kalim 3. Faiyaz Ahmad …Opposite parties ----------- 2. 16.12.2008. This revision application has been preferred against the order dated 28.4.2008 passed by F.T.C. III, Motihari in Criminal Revision No. 108/46 of 2007/07 thereby the order dated 29.1.2007 passed by Sri O.P. Yadav, Executive Magistrate, Raxaul in Trial No. 1 of 2006, Case No. 387 M/05 has been set aside. Learned Executive Magistrate has declared the possession of the petitioners in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the opposite parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is bad and illegal. The ground for setting aside the order of the court below is wholly illegal and bad. The title suit bearing no. 75 of 2006 has been filed by opposite parties long after institution of the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Therefore, pendnecy of - 2 - the suit is no bar in the continuation of a proceeding initiated earlier under section 145 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties submitted that no parallel proceeding should be allowed to be continued in face of pendency of a title suit with regard to the same property. The Court below has rightly set aside the order of the Executive Magistrate. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. On perusal of paragraph 6 of the impugned order it is quite apparent that only ground for setting aside the order of the executive magistrate is pendency of title suit bearing no. 75 of 2006. However, it is quite apparent from the record that the title suit was instituted during pendency of the proceeding instituted under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The proceeding is of the year 2005 whereas the suit has been instituted in the year 2006. It is well settled law that after institution of the proceeding filing of the - 3 - title suit will not affect the proceeding initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Thus, apparently, the order of the court below is illegal and bad in law. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed. Impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after hearing both the parties irrespective of the pendency of title suit bearing no. 75 of 2006. The matter must be decided within three months from the date of receipt of this order. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)