1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.

2. By means of present petition, prayer for quashing the proceedings initialed before Executive Magistrate, Tehsildar. Bishnah under Section 145 Cr. PC and setting aside orders dated: 17-08-2000 passed by Executive Magistrate, Tehsildar. Bishnah and 13-10-2001 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu has been made. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, brief facts need to be noticed, which are to the following effect.

3. The petitioner, Darshan Lal and Respondent-1 and 2, Sain Dass and Dass Ram, happened to be real brothers. The land aggregating 21 kanals situated at village Pindi Charkan Kalan, Teshil Bishnah contained in khasra Nos, 900. 960, 963. 974. 923. 961, 922. 924, 967, stood allotted to their father and thereafter ownership rights were also conferred upon their father. Their father, however, bequeathed the entire land in favour of the petitioner by executing a with. After the death of the father, petitioner. Darshan Lal, stepped into his shoes on the strength of a will and allegedly was in cultivating possession of the said land. A dispute will) regard to the said land crept up between the parties and litigation in respect of the said land commenced both in civil and revenue courts and a status-quo order is stilled to have been passed by Custodian. Evacuees Property, Jammu. It is further stated that the respondents, in order to harass the petitioner, initiaed proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC on an application of the respondents and the police report and passed the following composite order in terms of Section 145 Cr. PC:

4. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner, Darshan Lal. canvassed its correctness before 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Revision.Petition, however, did not succeed in the Revision and its dismissal occasioned him to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 561-A (sic) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing this petition.

5. The sole grievance of the petitioner raised in this petition is that the Inquiry Magistrate, before formulating the preliminary order, without recording his subjective satisfaction as to the existence of the dispute in relation to the immovable property giving rise to an apprehension of breach of peace on spot, attached the subject matter of dispute. It is further pleaded that the composite order has been drawn without due compliance of the mandatory requirement of Section 145 (3) Cr. PC of a publication and affixing of a notice at or near the place of dispute. That the proceedings under Section 145 (3) Cr. PC could not have been initiated as the matter was already pending in revenue and civil courts and interim injunction in respect of the said property has been granted, and that parallel proceedings under Section 145 regarding the same property is not maintainable. Lastly, it was contended by the petitioners advocate that the proceedings having initiated by the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr. PC, in such circumstances, have resulted not only in abuse of the process of law and occasioned failure of justice, and in order to secure the ends of justice prayed for quashing the proceedings and setting aside the composite order dated: 24-08-2000 passed by Inquiry Magistrate and affirmed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated: 13-10-2000.

6. The assumption of jurisdiction by an Executive Magistrate for initiating proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr. PC rests on its satisfaction about the existence of dispute giving rise to apprehension of breach of peace on spot in respect of land in dispute. He must pass a preliminary order under Sub-section (1) and afterwards make an enquiry under Sub-section (4). Where the Magistrate proceeds under Section 145 without being satisfied about the existence of the dispute likely to cause breach of peace, and failure to serve and publish a notice as required by Sub-section (3) and jumps to the passing of an order of attachment, i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document