K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dt. 9-1-1986 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur whereby setting aside the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sarangpur he has ordered that the proceedings under S. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 (for short 'the Code') be dropped.

( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the revision petition are these. On information laid before him that a dispute relating to the possession of the house property situate at Sarangpur, between one Chandmal and the present non-applicant 1 Bagmal likely to cause a breach of peace exists, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under S. 145 of the Code and passed a preliminary order under sub-sec. (1) thereof on 12-10-83.

( 3 ) THE present petitioner Mangilal is the successor in title of the said Chandmal.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the proceedings aforesaid the non-applicant 1 Bagmal on 11-4-84 filed an application before the learned S. D. M. , praying that the said proceedings be dropped as in Civil Suit No. 1 A of 1984 for possession of the property in dispute and for temporary injunction filed in the competent Civil Court, a bi-party order dt. 20-3-1984 has been passed in his favour and the petitioner Mangilal has been temporarily restrained from interfering with his possession over the said property.

( 5 ) THE learned S. D. M. dismissed the aforesaid application. The present non-applicant Bagmal challenged the said order in revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge who decided it, relying on the decision in Ram Sumer Puri's case, AIR 1985 SC 472 passed the impugned order.

( 6 ) THE contention canvassed by the petitioner's learned counsel is that the observation in the decision in Ram Sumer Puri's case (supra) must be read as relating to the facts of the case and were not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. According to the learned counsel, the pendency of the civil suit or the order granting temporary injunction do not have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the learned S. D. M. and under sub-sec. (6) of S. 145 of the Code, he could order restoration of possession. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on several decisions including those in R. H. Bhutani's case, AIR 1968 SC 1444 which is by three Judges, Mathuralal's case, AIR 1980 SC 242 and Punjab Co.-op. Bank's case. AIR 1940 PC 230.

( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant Bagmal is that in view of the pending civilsuit and the order granting temporary injunction there remains no occasion for any apprehension of breach of the peace and as held in Ram Sumar Puri's case (1985 Cri LJ 752 (SC) (supra) the parallel criminal proceedings were rightly ordered to be dropped. ( 8 ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

( 9 ) IT may be stated at the outset that as pointed out in the decision in Mathuralal v. Bhanwarlal (1980 Cri LJ 1) (SC) (supra) - Ss. 145 and 146 of the Code together constitute a scheme for the resolution of situation where there is likelihood of breach of the peace because of a dispute of the kind therein contemplated. It is clear from sub-sec. (1) of S. 145 that the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace constituted the very foundation of the Magistrate's jurisdiction thereunder. This jurisdiction, it may be stated, is co-extensive with the existence of the dispute of the nature referred to above. Misuse of the provisions by interested party has to be carefully guarded against.

( 10 ) IN the decision in R. H. Bhootani's case (1969 Cri LJ 13) (SC) (supra) it has been pointed out that sufficiency of material for initiation of proceedings under S. 145 of the Code is in the discretion of the Magistrate and the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, would not go into the question of sufficiency of material which has satisfied the Magistrate. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document