The court emphasized the imperative necessity of averting immediate breach of peace and maintaining law and order by preserving peace, and held that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not deprive the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to take action under Section 145 of the Code.

Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of proceeding under Section 145 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Fact of the Case:

The case involves a dispute over the Jacobite Syrian Puthen Church, Kundara, 'Kurissuthotti', cemetery, and the Sunday School building. The Executive First Class Magistrate, Quilon, initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, based on a report of the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakara, regarding a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not deprive the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to take action under Section 145 of the Code. The court directed the Magistrate to dispose of the case within three weeks and allowed the parties to apply for permission to bury the dead in the cemetery.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of materials to initiate proceedings under Section 145, the jurisdiction of the Executive First Class Magistrate, and the attachment of the cemetery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate must respect and give due weight to the recent decision of a Civil Court, even if it is an interim order declaring possession of a party. The court emphasized the imperative necessity of averting immediate breach of peace and maintaining law and order by preserving peace.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, subject to the observation made, and the records were to be sent back immediately. The Magistrate was directed to dispose of the case within three weeks and allow the parties to apply for permission to bury the dead in the cemetery.

Judgment :-

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the B Party in M.C. No. 1 of 1974, for quashing a proceeding instituted under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Quilon.

2. The subject-matter of the case is the Jacobite Syrian Puthen Church, Kundara, 'Kurissuthotti', cemetery and the Sunday School building situated in one acre and one cent of land comprised in Sy. No. 654/9A in Thrippalazhikom Muri, in Ezhukon Village, within the jurisdiction of the Executive First Class Magistrate, Quilon. This proceeding was instituted on the basis of a report of the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakara, submitted after enquiry into a petition filed by the A Party before the Superintendent of Police, and duly counter-signed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoor, A-Party consists of 4 persons while B-Party, 25 persons.

3. In pursuance of the notice issued following the preliminary order, both parties appeared before the Executive First Class Magistrate and are said to have filed written statements and produced documents and affidavits.

4. While so, the present petition was filed by the B-Party on 3-7-1974 for quashing the entire proceedings.

5. Although a number of grounds are taken in the petition; at the time of hearing, the Counsel for the petitioners urged only the following grounds in support of the petition.

(i) The materials on record are not sufficient to reach the satisfaction referred to in Section 145(1) to institute a proceeding under this section; whereas the available materials clearly disclose that the real dispute between the parties is one regarding the user of the Church.

(ii) The Executive First Class Magistrate has no jurisdiction to invoke proceedings under Section 145 of the Code, when Civil Suits between the parties in respect of the identical properties are pending.

(iii) The Executive First Class Magistrate ought not to have attached the cemetery and in any view, should not have prevented the members of the B-Party and the other parishioners belonging to their faith from making use of the cemetery.

6. I shall now consider the points raised on behalf of the petitioners one by one. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the petition filed by the A-Party and the police report do not disclose any dispute regarding possession of the properties, that it is clear from them that the real dispute is regarding user of the Church and therefore the section that is applicable to the case is Section 147 of the Code. The counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary point that in view of Section 145(5) of the Code, this petition seeking exercise of the inherent powers of this Court is not maintainable. The petitioners have questioned the very jurisdiction of the Executive First Class Magistrate to initiate the proceeding which is impugned and as such it cannot be said that this petition is not maintainable. I do not think it is right for this Court in a petition of this nature to enquire into the question whether the materials before the Executive First Class Magistrate were sufficient to pass an order under Section 145(1) of the Code, because the satisfaction referred to in this section is that of the Magistrate. In R. H. Bhutani v. Miss Mani J. Desai, AIR 1968 SC 1444 = (1969 Cri LJ 13) the Supreme Court has observed as follows :

"The satisfaction under sub-section (1) of Section 145 is of the Magistrate. The question whether on the materials before him, he should initiate proceedings or not is, therefore, in his discretion which, no doubt, has to be exercised in accordance with the well recognised rules of law in that behalf. No hard and fast rule can, therefore, be laid down as to the sufficiency of material for his satisfaction. The language of the sub-section is clear and unambiguous that he can arrive at his satisfaction both from the police report or 'from other information' which must include an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document