(1.) All these three applications in revision are directed against final orders, passed under Sec. 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure; Criminal Revisions 486 and 487 of 1968 arise out of the same order, the former having been filed by the fourth party in the proceeding and the latter by the members of the third party. Criminal Revision No. 957 of 1968 arises oat of a different final older and has been filed by members of the first party. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioners in all these cases in support of the rule is that the Magistrate who initiated the proceedings having omitted to state in the initial order that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace and also the grounds upon which he was satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed, the whole of the subsequent proceedings were null and void, and the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the final order under revision. It is for the determination of this question that these three cases have been referred to a Division Bench. Hence, these cases before us.
(2.) In Criminal Revision No. 957 of 1968, the Magistrate passed the following order on the 16th December, 1968: - -
(3.) In Criminal Revision Nos. 486 and 487 of 1968 which, as mentioned earlier arise out of the same proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code and are directed against the same final order, a proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Code was initiated on the 19th September 1960, against both the parties. The order initiating the proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Code was passed on a police report which, as mentioned in the order, had set out an apprehension of a breach of the peace regarding dispute as to lands between the parties. After the parties had filed their respective show cause petition, the learned Magistrate passes the following order on the 14th November 1960: - -