Dropping of proceedings u/s 145.

Criminal Revision Case No. 1227 of 1951 has been filed against the order dropping proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mayuram, in M. C. No. 74 of 1951.

The facts are: On the ground of strained feelings existing between the Velur Devastanam and Sambandamurthi Nainar in connection with the cultivation of five survey numbers in the village of Maruvathur, 24 acres in extent, a preliminary order, dated 13th July, 1951, under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code, was issued calling on both the parties to put in their written statements in regard to the factum of actual possession. The lands were also attached under section 145 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, and the Tahsildar of Sirkali was directed to be the Court agent. This order was passed on 14th July, 1951. The Tahsildar of Sirkali took possession of the lands on 18th July, 1951. On 26th July, 1951, the Tahsildar held an auction in respect of the lease of the lands for fasli 1361 and one Gopala Chettiar was the highest bidder and the lease was granted to him for 290 kalams of paddy and 72 bundles of straw. This Gopala Chettiar is stated to have deposited Rs. 1848-8-0 as security for the due performance of the obligation under the lease. In response to the preliminary order, dated 13th July, 1951, written statements were filed by the parties on 4th September, 1951 and 11th September, 1951. These are the facts constituting the background as to what happened on 19th September, 1951.

On 19th September, 1951, P.W. 1, the Head clerk of the petitioner Devasthanam as well as the counter petitioner (R.W. 1) were examined and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the following Order:-

“Both the petitioner and the counter petitioner deposed in Court that there was no breach of peace or clash regarding the lands in dispute. I therefore am satisfied that there existed no dispute likely to cause a breach of peace. Hence under section 145{5), Criminal Procedure Code, I cancel the preliminary order under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code and withdraw the attachment of the lands and all further proceedings under section 145 are hereby dropped.”

The present revision petition is filed on the foot of the following ground, namely that in cases where parties in response to the preliminary order passed under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code, came and satisfied the Court that there is no likelihood of breach of the peace, section 145(5) can be resorted to; but if without doing so they filed their statements and asserted their rights and the case itself was posted to a later date for evidence at that stage there was no question of clause (5) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, coming into operation.

This proposition involves two aspects, namely, whether in law the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was entitled to pass the order dropping the proceedings at the stage at which he had done and secondly, whether on the reasons set out by him the proceedings could be dropped as a fact.

Point 1: On the first point I have come to the conclusion that in law the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was fully entitled to drop the proceedings at the stage at which he had done. The object of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is to preserve public peace and tranquillity of the realm from riots and commotion. Orders under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, are merely police orders made to prevent breaches of the peace and they decide no questions of title: Dinomani Chowdhrani v. Brojo Mohini Chowdhrani1. The foundation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is the apprehension felt by him that unless action is taken there will be a breach of the peace. It is the Magistrate who should be satisfied that the apprehension is an existing one and an adequate one for taking action to avert the breach of the peace. Mere apprehension of the party or even of the police or by a superior authority, namely, the District Magistrate, is no sufficient g