(1.) THIS application in revision by the members of the first party is directed against the Magistrate's order dated 8.8.1974 by means of which he has restored the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which was pending between them and the members of the second party (opposite party here). While making this restoration the Magistrate has observed that he is satisfied that the apprehension of breach of the peace between the parties still continues.
(2.) AS it appears, this proceeding initially commenced under Section 144 of the Code on 7.3.1970, the basis of which was the police report submitted in the matter. After hearing the parties with reference to the show cause filed by them in that proceeding, the Magistrate, by his order dated 25.4.1970, converted the proceeding to be one under Section 145 of the Code. He also attached the land during the continuance of the proceeding.
(3.) THE second party, if they had any grievance against this order of the Magistrate dropping the proceeding, instead of moving any higher court filed a petition on the very next day, i.e., 8.6.1972, before the Magistrate requesting him to restore and revive the proceeding challenging the correctness of his earlier order dropping it. In that petition, the second party averred that he could not do so simply because of the pendency of the suit in the civil court in that behalf so long as the apprehension of breach of the peace was not eliminated. This petition of the second party continued pending till 24.1.1974 for hearing. On that day, he heard the parties' lawyers at some length and adjourned it to 5.2.1974 on which date he heard them further and directed for the continuance of the proceeding as also called upon them to appear for the hearing of the case on merit on 23.2.1974 because they had already filed their documents. On this very day, i.e. 5.2.1974, he passed a subsequent order from which it appears that he wanted to hear both sides again on the question of revival of the proceeding. Thus, in effect his previous order of that date directing the continuance of the proceeding was not given effect to and was kept in abeyance pending further hearing of the parties on this question. The matter hanged on in the court at that stage till 10.7.1974 when he heard learned lawyers of both sides on the point of restoration of the proceedings and reserved his orders for 16.7.1974. He could not, however, make the order on three intervening dates and passed it on 8.8.1974 restoring the proceeding, which order is the subject -matter of challenge in this revision.