RADHESHYAM SHARMA Vs. JAGTENDRA PRASAD JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 14.11.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chatra in case No. 62 of 2003 whereby he has converted the proceeding under section 144, Cr.P.C. into a proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C. and also for quashing the order dated 28.3.2005 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order was dismissed. The facts of the case lie in narrow compass :

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioners filed revision application before the Sessions Jude. Chatra being Cr. Revision No 66 of 2003. The Revisional Court held that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate reveals that he after being satisfied that dispute exists which may result breach of peace, converted the proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C. It is worth to mention here that both the parties have claimed title and possession over the land in question. The Revisional Court, therefore, in the order held that the Sub Divisional Magistrate will decide the case on merit. Paragraph 7 of the order of the Revisional Court is quoted herein below :

(3.) SECTION 145, Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to issue notice to the parties for filing written statement of their respective claims with regard to actual possession of the subject of dispute. That power can be exercised only when the Magistrate is satisfied from a report of police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof. In such cases, the Magistrate shall make an order in writing stating the grounds of being so satisfied. The object of this section is to prevent a breach of peace by maintaining one or other of the parties in possession, until the right of one of the parties is determined. The order passed by the Magistrate must indicate the grounds for finding that there was likelihood of breach of the peace. Where the Magistrate simply records the fact of his satisfaction but not the ground of his satisfaction, such order can not be sustained in law.