Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—Applicants have come before this Court under Section 482 seeking quashment of the impugned orders dated 14.6.2009 and 14.7.2003 and proceedings of Case No. 6 of 2003 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., Ganesh Mishra and another v. Ram Krishan Kheria and another, Police Station Badshahi Naka, District Kanpur Nagar, Pending in the Court of City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

2. The dispute relates to first floor of house No. 49/32 Generalganj, District Kanpur Nagar. The said floor was under the tenancy of Punjab National Bank since long time. According to the applicants, the Police Station Badshahi Naka, District Kanpur Nagar sent a challani report dated 14.7.2003 for initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. between the parties. After receiving the said challani report, on 14.7.2003 the City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar has passed the preliminary order under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. directing the parties to appear before him on 23.7.2003 and file written objection in support of their claim. An order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. has also been passed by the City Magistrate directing the attachment of the property in dispute.

3. The applicants had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Application 473 of 2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Hon’ble Court which was disposed of by an order dated 23.1.2009 with the direction to the City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to consider and decide the Case No. 6 of 2003 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within three months. In pursuance of the said order, the matter was referred to the City Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in Case No. 6 of 2003. The Interim order passed by the City Magistrate dated 24.6.2009 has been placed by the applicants before this Court as Annexure 20 alongwith the present application. The applicants also filed order sheet of the Court below as Annexure 21 alongwith this application for the purpose of deciding controversy.

4. The order dated 24.6.2009 on the order sheet shows that the case was called out but the parties are not present, accordingly the case was directed to be listed on 13.7.2009. However, perusal of the order dated 24.6.2009 annexed as Annexure 20 shows that the City Magistrate passed a detailed order on that day. The Magistrate recorded a finding that the property in dispute was in possession of the applicants on the basis of the record which was produced before him and directed the parties to maintain status quo till the civil suit pending between the parties is disposed of. This order is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

5. Applicants’ case is that no such order was passed on 24.6.2009 and the case was adjourned to 13.7.2009. On the other hand, the case of the other side is that order was passed on 24.6.2009 and the Magistrate has directed the parties to maintain status quo till the civil suit is decided.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are intended to avoid the breach of peace when a dispute is raised in respect of possession of the property. Section 145 (1) provides as under :

“(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.

7. In view of this, it is compulsory that before drawing the preliminary order, the Magistrate has to be satisfied on the following counts :

1. There exists any dispute in respect of any land, water or boundaries.

2. The disp