PERIANAYAGASAMY MADRID Vs. THALI ARPOUDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions arise out of the order in M.C.No.9 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pondicherry, refusing to invoke the provisions of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, as he found that there is no dispute likely to cause breach of peace.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the "A" party. The Station House Officer of the Ground Bazar Police Station has laid information that there is a dispute in respect of ownership of premises No.6, Lolly Thollandal Street, Pondicherry and that dispute is likely to cause breach of peace. The learned Executive Magistrate issued a notice under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code calling upon the parties to appear before him on 22.2.1982, and file their statements. Statements were filed and the case of "B" party was that the dispute is the subject-matter of an Original Suit, O.S.No.522 of 1981 (the judgment does not say where the suit is filed, but from the reports it is seen that the suit is filed, in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry) and that there is no emergency or exigency. This contention found favour with the Executive Magistrate, who held that there is no dispute likely to cause breach of peace and therefore he cancelled the order passed under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code. That order is now challenged.

(3.) There are no merits in this case. When the Executive Magistrate finds that there is no dispute which will cause breach of peace, he cannot take action under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. It should be noted that it is the Magistrate"s apprehension of breach of peace that is the foundation of his jurisdiction and that the apprehension of the parties or the police is no ground for action under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. On that view, these revisions, which are devoid of merits, are dismissed.