( 1 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents has made a two fold submission. In the first instance, he has urged that the petitioner did not approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with clean hands inasmuch as he suppressed some vital facts in order to obtain a favourable order. As pointed out by him, the petitioner suppressed the fact that Karan Singh, respondent No. I was father of the deceased tenant. He also suppressed the fact that Smt. Krishna Devi, being widow of the deceased, was in possession of the plot in dispute. Secondly, the petitioner has tried to take advantage of his own wrong inasmuch as after the death of Ramesh Kumar he made frantic efforts to somehow dispossess his widow and father. So, he concocted the story of his being in possession of the rest of the plot excluding the tenanted room although the fact was that the whole of the premises were in the tenancy and possession of Ramesh Kumar, deceased. He has also invited my attention to para 4 of the application of the petitioner under Section 145 of the Code in which he had stated that the petitioner tried to get the room vacated from respondent Nos. I and 2. Thus, the precise argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is that he had no right or justification to get the demised premises vacated and this paragraph shows clearly the malafide intention of the petitioner that his prayer for initiation of proceedings under Section 145 was just a subterfuge to somehow throw out the respon- dents from the plot in question. The further argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have taken into consideration all these facts which were speaking eloquently about the evil design of the petitioner and as such the Sub-Divisional Magistrate committed a serious error in discarding the police report which reflected the true state of affairs. There was hardly any justification or basis for the learned Magistrate to discard the police report as being biased or partisan.

( 2 ) ON a consideration of the whole matter, I am unable to find any fault with the approach of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Admittedly, there was a fight between the parties on the night between 28/29th June 1983 in which two persons one from each party sustained injuries. It is true that on the basis of the report lodged by respondent No. I a case under Section 452 Indian Penal Code has been registered against the sons and son-in-law of the petitioner. However, it is difficult to infer from this fact alone that the allegations. contained in the FIR must be correct as the same have yet to be substantiated at the trial. Mere pendency of a criminal case under Section 452 IPC does not stand in the way of the Magistrate assuming jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Code and drawing up a preliminary order provided, of course, the conditions laid therein are satisfied. The petitioner has come out with a parallel version that in fact he was in actual physical possession of the plot in question excepting the room and his sons used to sleep there. So, according to him, it was the party of the respondents who were aggressors and tried to throw them out of the plot on the aforesaid night. Under these circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate that there did exist a dispute between the parties which was likely to cause breach of peace cannot be said to be ill-founded or untenable. As stated above, the question whether upon the materials placed before him proceedings should be instituted under Section 145 is one entirely within the Magistrate s jurisdiction and the revisional court can interfere with. the Magistrate s discretion only in exceptional cases when the order is patently unreasonable and unjustifiable.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to some documents including a receipt dated 25th February 1971 which was placed- by the respondents on record alongwith th