SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.605/2002 Kedar Singh Panwar & Ors. Vs. Jamal Khan & Ors. [ 1 ] S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition NO.605/2002 Kedar Singh Panwar & Ors. vs Jamal Khan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 7.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Vivek Shrimali, for the petitioners. Mr. Vineet Jain, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The property in question was attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the Executive Magistrate and was given in possession of the receiver on 13th Oct., 1998. The order of attachment was confirmed by the Executive Magistrate, Asstt. District Magistrate, Pali vide order dated 12.12.2000. The said order was challenged by non-petitioners by preferring the revision petition no.32/2002 before the Sessions Curt, which was allowed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Pali vide order dated 8th July, 2002. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Pali vide impugned order dated 8th July, 2002 after making certain observations about the possession of the property in dispute, set aside the order of the learned Executive SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.605/2002 Kedar Singh Panwar & Ors. Vs. Jamal Khan & Ors. [ 2 ] Magistrate dated 12.12.2000, hence, this misc. petition has been preferred by the original applicants now the petitioners before this Court. The proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. is the proceeding taken for protecting the law and order situation and in this proceeding police orders are being passed so that the parties may not decide the question of possession on spot on the basis of their might. It is settled law that when appropriate relief is sought from civil court or revenue court, as the case may be, then the appropriate relief, final as well as interim relief can be obtained from the said court of law. The party can get the interim relief from the court to protect their right and also further can obtain the mandatory injunction in case of absolutely highhanded illegal disposition. In this case, the property is not under attachment since the year 2002 more specifically from 8th July, 2002. No untoward incident has been reported and further learned counsel for the non-petitioners submits that the possession has been delivered to the non-petitioners on 16th July, 2002. In view of the above, situation, the court can presume that SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.605/2002 Kedar Singh Panwar & Ors. Vs. Jamal Khan & Ors. [ 3 ] their exist no apprehension of breach of peace and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. itself does not survive. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.Goyal/-