ORDER K.C. Bhargava, J.
1. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20th December, 1993, contained in annexure-l to the writ petition, passed by the Sessions Judge, Gonda, opposite party No. 1, and for quashing the entire proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that parellel proceedings cannot go on under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure along with the proceedings pending before the consolidation courts. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute since a long time and the matter is pending before the consolidation authorities. In the meantime opposite party No. 3, Bachcha Bux Singh, raised a dispute about possession on the basis of which proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated by the police. He has further argued that the learned Magistrate at a later stage of the proceedings on receipt of the police report dropped the proceedings holding that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. Against this order the opposite party No. 3 went in revision and in the revision the order of the Magistrate was set aside and the case was remanded to the Magistrate with certain directions.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner once the matter is pending before the consolidation courts the criminal court should stay the proceedings and should not proceed. He has placed reliance on the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., (1985 (3) LCD 75) : (1985 Cri LJ 752). In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the civil court has decided the matter then institution of parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be justified, hence the decree passed by the civil court is binding on the criminal court and the criminal court should follow the order passed by the civil court. This case has no application with the present case because here the civil court has not decided the case and no case is pending before the civil court.
4. The next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Phool Singh v. State of U.P., (1976 LLJ 389). In this case it was held that the consolidation authorities have exclusive powers not only with respect to title of the land but possession in regard to land situate within the area in which the consolidation proceedings were started and during the consolidation proceedings no other civil court has right to determine the question of possession. In the present case the question is not about determination of title or possession. The present controversy between the parties is about apprehension of breach of peace. The consolidation court has not so far determined the possession of any of the party to the property in dispute. Unless the consolidation court decides the possession of one or the other party it cannot be said that there is no apprehension of breach of peace and criminal court cannot proceed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If there is apprehension of breach of peace then the criminal court can act unless a finding of the competent court about possession comes.
5. The learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings on the basis of the police report that there is no apprehension of breach of peace. The learned Magistrate did not consider the evidence on record and the contention of the parties before dropping the proceedings. The learned appellate court has considered the case in all respects and after taking into consideration the relevant law on the point it came to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate should not have dropped the proceedings merely on the basis of the police report dated 4-3' 1990 with respect to apprehension of breach of peace. Once the proceedings have started and the record shows that there is apprehension of breach of peace then the Magistrate is bound to decide the controversy and should not take action on one sided police report that there is no apprehension of breach of peace. The order passed by the learned revisional court below is perfectly justified in view of the facts of the case and no interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The petition is summarily dismissed.