Jitendra Kumar, J. – Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pronoti Singh, Ld. A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Prakash Chandra, Ld. counsel for the Respondent no.2 and Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Ld. counsel for the Respondent no. 3 are present.

2. Learned counsel for Respondent no.2 also files counter affidavit along with annexures across the board supplying a copy of the same to the Ld. counsel for the petitioner and the same is taken on record.

3. The present petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been preferred for quashing the order dated 24.11.2014 passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahua in Criminal Proceeding bearing No. 979 of 2014 initiated under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

4. The aforesaid proceeding was initiated by Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahua on report of Pateypur Police Station bearing Case No. 25 of 2014 dated 01.07.2014, as per which it was reported that there is tension between first party Dharmnath Sah son of Sri Brahmdeo Sah and 2nd party Kishori Sah son of Ramautar Sah on account of land disputes between the parties with reference to Khata No. 276, Khesra No. 981 measuring 16 decimal and Khata No. 293, Khesra No. 1277 measuring 8 decimal and there was recommendation by the police for initiating proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C.. Hence, proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated by Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahua and after hearing both the parties and perusing the documents, the aforesaid proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was converted into proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 23.08.2014, holding that there is apprehension of breach of peace between both the parties on account of disputes between them in regard to possession of the landed property in question.

5. By the impugned order dated 24.11.2014 Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahua attached the land in dispute holding that despite initiation of proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. there is apprehension of breach of peace between both the parties and Officer-in-charge of Pateypur P.S. was appointed as receiver and both the parties were directed to adduce evidence in support of their claims on the next date. It further transpires that Dharmnath Sah who was first party before the Ld. Executive Magistrate and Respondent no.2 herein has purchased the land bearing Khata No. 293, Khesra No. 1277 measuring 8 decimal from one Ramesh Sah and he is allegedly in possession of the same. However, the same property is being claimed by the petitioner herein Ravindra Kumar on account of alleged purchase of the same land from Kishori Sah, who is Respondent no.3 herein and who was 2nd party before Ld. Executive Magistrate. It further transpires that the land bearing Khata No. 276, Khesra No. 981 measuring 16 decimal is in alleged possession of Dharmnath Sah, who was first party before Ld. Executive Magistrate and Respondent no.2 herein, is being claimed by respondent no.3 Kishori Sah, who was 2nd party before Ld. Executive Magistrate as his own property. It also transpires that on account of the aforesaid dispute Dharmnath Sah, who was first party before the Ld. Executive Magistrate, has filed one civil suit on 17.01.2017 against Ravindra Kumar, Kishori Sah and Ramesh Sah in court of Ld. Sub-Judge-Ist, Vaishali at Hajipur bearing Title Suit No. 55 of 2017 seeking declaration that sale deed executed by Kishori Sah in favour of Ravindra Kumar is null and void and inoperative. The same suit is still pending consideration before Ld. Civil Court.

6. Heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the Respondent nos.2 and 3.

7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders dated 23.08.2014 and 24.11.2014, passed by Ld. Executive Magistrate in criminal proceeding bearing no. 979 of 2014 are liable to be quashed because the same have been passed mechanically without any fulfillment of the precondition required for passing the orders. In fact, they are abuse of the process of the