Multiple proceedings under Section 144 of the CrPC are not illegal or invalid, but they must be initiated with due care and caution, considering the past history of litigations between the parties.

ANAND PRASAD SINHA, J.

1. The petitioners, who were the members of the 2nd party in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code), have challenged the order dated 5-9-1983 passed in case No. 1267 (M) 83 by which a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code has been initiated in which opposite party No. 2 was the first party.

2. The proceeding had been initiated on the basis of the report of the Officer Incharge of Rani Talab police station. The dispute was for possession of plot No. 792, appertaining to Khata No. 23 having an area of 2 khatas situated in village Kanpa. By the impugned order the petitioners and opposite party No. 2 have been restrained from going over the land in dispute.

3. According to the case of the petitioners, the disputed plots of land had been purchased and thereafter their names had been mutated. Earlier, no account of enmity with the sarpanch due to Gram Panchayat election, a false claim and dispute had been raised by opposite party No. 2 leading to a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code having been drawn by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Danapur, on 30-6-1982. Both the parties when restrained, show cause had been asked for. The proceeding was, on the basis of the report of the local sarpanch. The then learned Sub-divisional Magistrate by an order dated 7-10-1982 has made the rule of restraint absolute against opposite party No. 2 and he was restrained from going over the disputed land. Even then, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code had been drawn on 5-11-1982 with respect to the same lands and parties which by an. order dated 11-4-1983 had been decided in favour of the petitioners.

4. According to the assertion of the petitioners, opposite party No. 2 has managed to got up a proceeding again under Section 144 of the Code.

5. It appears that the revision application has been admitted on 4-10-1983 in this Court and the further proceeding in the court below has been ordered to be stayed.

6. It has been urged that the present proceeding is not maintainable in view of the back ground that earlier the matter had been concluded both in a proceeding under Sections 144 and 145 of the Code.

7. During the course of argument a point has also been raised that in view of the stay order passed by this Court and considering that, as a matter of fact, 60 days have already expired, what will be the position with regard to the life of the proceeding when this application is disposed of.

8. In order to dispose of the first contention, it will be necessary to mention that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code is mainly and prominently for taking immediate Paction, quite speedy in nature for preventing cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. While considering an action for a proceeding, the concerned Magistrate, so empowered, will have essentially to form an opinion regarding the existence of situations warranting adoption of such a measure. The effective part of the proceeding contemplates positive action resulting into restraint and thus regulating the conduct of one or several persons with the sole aim to avoid danger to human life, health or safety and all taken together disturbance of the public tranquility or a riot or an affray.

9. Therefore, one of the essentials of the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code is preventive and not punitive. Considering this aspect of the proceeding, it cannot be accepted as a matter of rule that if once a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code has already been taken up and decided that will make subsequent proceeding illegal or invalid or without jurisdiction. However, this will depend entiely on the facts and circumstances of each case. There being no punitive element in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code, precaution has to be taken that any such proceeding may not be a substitute for an instrument of harassment and dragging any person unnecessarily in the so called litigation arising