A Magistrate has jurisdiction to restore possession to a party who has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within 2 months of the date of the preliminary order under Section 145(4) and (6) of the CrPC.

The criminal revision is an off-short of a pro­ceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short "the Code".

2. The object of Section 145 of "the Code" is to prevent breach of peace and for that end to provide a speedy remedy by bringing the contending parties before the Court and ascerta­ining who of them was in actual possession, to maintain status quo until their rights are finally determined by a competent court. The life of the order is co-terminous with the passing a deeree by Civil Court and the moment the Civil Court makes an order of eviction the final order of the Criminal Court stands super­seded. The section authorises a Magistrate to issue a declara­tory order in favour of the party that he is entitled to posse­ssion "until evicted therefrom in due course of law". The Magis­trate does not decide or purport to decide a party's title or right to possession of the land as these areas are especially reserved for the Civil Court. The foundation of assumption of jurisdiction is on apprehension of breach of the peace. The Magistrate makes only a temporary order irrespective of the rights of the parties which will have to be agitated and deter­mined in the manner provided by law. Under Section 145(1) the jurisdiction of a Magistrate is exclusively limited to decide whether any and which of the parties was, on the date of the preliminary order, in possession of the land in dispute. The order only declares the actual possession of a party on the specific date. However, in the event of any party who has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within 2 months next before the date of the preliminary order the Magistrate is autho­rised to treat the party who was dispossessed as if he had been in possession on such date. The power is enjoined in pro­viso to section 145(4) read with sub-section (6) thereof. It is true that the Magistrate has to decide who is in actual posse­ssion on the date of his preliminary order but if he finds that the party in dc-facto possession on that date had obtained possession forcibly and. wrongfully dispossessing the other party within 2 months next preceding the date of his order the Magistrate can treat the dispossessed party as if he was in possession on such date and restore possession to him, and, prohibit the dispossessor from interfering with the possession until eviction of that person in due course of law. It is evident that the proviso to section 145(4) is grounded on the principle that forcible and wrongful dispossession is not to be recogni­sed under the criminal law. The word "dispossessed" in the proviso means and includes to be out of possession, ousted, ejected, removed from the premises or excluded. Even a person having a right to possession cannot dispossess another by taking the law into his hands and making a forcible entry otherwise than in due course of law. The relevant observation of the Supreme Court in R. H. Bhutani vs. Miss Mani J. Desai, AIR 1968 SC 1441 is extracted here in below :

"The next ground for the High Court's inteference was that assuming that the applicant was forcibly and wrong­fully dispossessed and the said salim was assaulted, the said dispossession was completed, a complaint of assault was lodged and the police had already taken action before the preliminary order was passed on June 20, 1966. Therefore, it was said, there was no longer any dispute on the date of the order likely to lead to breach of peace and consequently the order did not comply with the requirements of Section 145 (1) and was without jurisdic­tion. This reasoning would mean that if a party takes the law into his hands and deprives forcibly and wrong­fully the other party of his possession and completes his act of dispossession, the party so dispossessed cannot have the benefit of Section 145, as by the time he files his application and the Magistrate passes his order, the dispossession would be complete and, therefore, there would be no existing dispute l