VED RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred with a prayer for quashing the proceeding under Section 145 CrPC in case No. 7/11 of 1984 and also the order dated 19-4-1984 of the Magistrate attaching the property under Section 146 (1) CrPC. Curiously enough while the matter also went in revision directed against the order under, Section 146 (1) CrPC there is no prayer concerning the judgment of the revisional court though the revision was dismissed. THEre is no prayer for quashing the order in revision. It may be also mentioned that against the preliminary order also there was a revision and a certified copy of the judgment and order of the revisional Court dated 5-9-1984 is also on record and there is no prayer for quashing the same. I may first consider whether the main proceeding under Section 145 CrPC can be quashed. This prayer was made in the petition. THE arguments were, however confined to the merits of the later order under Section 1416 (1) CrPC. THE preliminary order passed by the Magistrate is dated 8-2-1984, Annexure 5. A perusal of the same would show that the Magistrate recorded his satisfaction regarding apprehension of breach of peace, centering round a dispute over possession of the immovable property involved. THE material on which this satisfaction was based also referred to in that order. THE Magistrate has stated that he is satisfied as aforesaid on the basis of the Police Report. THE police report is also on record, Annexure 4. It would be found that the police did report that there is great tension between respective parties on the dispute concerning property and there is an apprehension of reach of peace and a proceeding under Section 145 CrPC is requisite to prevent such breach. It is well settled law that the satisfaction is subjective of the Magistrate. It can be based on any materials. THE police report was there and the Magistrate has also referred to the same in his preliminary order and when that is the position no interference with such order is open in exercise of inherent powers and the course open to the parties is to put their respective claims by filing written statements and merits have to be looked into under the provisions of Section 145 (4) CrPC.

(2.) ARGUMENTS advanced by the counsel for the applicant are that the order under Section 146 (1) passed subsequently is bad. Reliance is placed upon the Division Bench case in Bansi v. Hari Singh, AIR 1956 Allahabad 297 as well as two other pronouncements, one of Bombay High Court reported in 1978 CrLJ 1492 and one of Rajasthan reported in 1974 CrLJ 726 and it is urged that in the judgment, also including an order, under Section 146 (1) CrPC the Magistrate has to state reasons for his orders.