Point of Law: A preliminary order is nothing but foundation of jurisdiction of Magistrate, who draws proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner Abdul Kayum Barbhuiya has filed an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC for short) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Revision Case No. 22/2023.

3. The petitioner has submitted that he and his brother Asaddar Ali Barbhuiya are joint owners of the disputed land (D/L for short) in question, admeasuring 1 Bigha 16 Kathas and 6 Chattaks appertaining to 2nd R.S. Patta No. 46, Dag No. 286 at Porgana Gumra, Mouza-Kalain Pt-VII, in the Dist.-Cachar. Vide registered Sale Deed No. 802 dated 05.05.2011 the petitioner and his brother became the owners of the D/L and they have been in possession of the same, without any hindrance from any corner and they have also constructed a pucca house (concrete house). In the year 2016, they obtained an NOC from the concerned Gaon Panchayat for setting of a Weigh Bridge in the name and style of M/s. KBI Weigh Bridge over the D/L and another NOC was obtained for electricity connection. The Weigh Bridge was setup in the year 2017 and the electricity connection was also acquired at the same time. However, in the year 2022, the Weigh Bridge was shifted from D/L to a nearby location, but the concrete structure of the Weigh Bridge is still lying in the D/L.

4. It has been contended that as the D/L is near the respondent No. 1’s residential house. The respondent No. 1 Eakbal Hussain Choudhury @ Ikbal Hussain Choudhury @ Eagbal Hussain Choudhury along with the other proforma respondents Setab Uddin and Badar Uddin illegally and forcefully entered into the D/L. Subsequently, on 10.01.2023 at about 8 PM the respondents trespassed into the petitioner’s house constructed on the D/L and took away all the valuable materials from the house by breaking the lock. The respondents also encroached into the D/L. The elderly residents of the village tried to settle the dispute but the respondents refused to settle the matter. Again on 11.01.2023, the respondents tried to enter into the land, and this impelled the petitioner to lodge an FIR against the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents started to threaten the petitioner to dispossess him from the D/L and they also threatened to kill the family members of the petitioner.

5. Apprehending breach of peace and tranquillity in the locality as well as loss of human lives and property, the petitioner filed a petition on 12.01.2023 which was registered as M.R. Case No. 46M/2023 and the Additional District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, after hearing the petitioner and on perusal of the police report vide order dated 20.01.2023, drew up a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.PC and attached the D/L u/s 146(1) Cr.PC and restrained both the parties from entering into the D/L until further order(s) and a date was fixed for written statement by both the parties. Against this order the respondent No. 1 approached the Court of the Sessions Judge at Cachar by filing a Criminal Revision Petition on 27.01.2023, registered as Criminal Revision No. 22/2023. The learned Sessions Judge, Cachar vide order dated 27.01.2023 admitted the criminal revision petition filed by the respondent No. 1 and stayed the order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Cachar.

6. It is argued that the order of stay, paved way for fresh dispute between the parties causing disturbance of peace and public tranquility in the locality which may escalate to any extent. It is submitted by the petitioner that the order dated 27.01.2023 is not maintainable in the eye of law and amounts to abuse of the process of law. The learned Additional District Magistrate has rightly exercised his power