Section 145CrPc Where dispute of land likely to be breach of peace.

145‑‑Interpretation of S.145, Cr.P.C.‑‑Jurisdiction of Magistrate under S.145, Cr.P.C. is dependent not on an application by a party or a report by police or information received from any quarter but is dependent on his being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace exists and how the Magistrate comes to know of it, is not at all material for purpose of assuming jurisdiction‑‑Order under S.145, Cr.P.C. can only be passed if the Magistrate is satisfied. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under that section is dependent not on an application by a party or a report by police or information received from any quarter but it is dependent on his being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace exists. How he comes to know of it, is not at all material for the purposes of assuming jurisdiction. It is only when that satisfaction is there that an order can be passed. It is by reference to this satisfaction and the order passed thereafter that further proceedings or the nature of the orders to be passed are conditioned. The first proviso refers to the date of such order as is passed on being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace exists. In such a situation where the satisfaction of the Magistrate is the jurisdictional ground and that has no reference to any application or to a particular source of information, no party laying such an information can claim a right in the proceedings as such of which a grievance can be made that the Magistrate by delaying the order had prejudiced its cause. Chunchu Narayana v. Karrapati Kesappa A I R (38) 1951 Mad. 500; Bhadramma v. Kotam Raj A I R 1955 Hyd. 140; Ganga Bux Sing v. Sukhdin AIR 1959 All. 141 and Fazal Din v. The State 1982 P Cr.LJ 277 ref. 1987 SCMR 13712021 P Cr. L J 1850 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 145---Procedure where dispute concerning land is likely to cause breach of peace---Scope---Petitioners assailed order passed by Sessions Judge whereby revision petition filed by respondent against the order of Magistrate was accepted and the order passed in favour of petitioners was set aside---Respondent on the other hand had sought initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the petitioners for non-compliance of High Court's order passed in the criminal miscellaneous application---Petitioners being partners on one side were locked in property dispute with respondent---Respondent entered into agreement with the petitioners for land access and thereafter through addendum agreement for a development project---Proceedings before civil court as well as before revenue authorities were pending, however, respondent had taken a categorical stance that he was owner in possession of certain part of the land and he was developing the same after making payment to the petitioners---Petitioners had acknowledged the execution of land access agreement as well as addendum agreement but had sought cancellation of those agreements on the ground that the respondent had backed out from his commitment---Register Girdawri showed that the respondent was in possession of the land as claimed by him---Revisional Court had come to the conclusion that physical possession of the disputed land was not settled on the basis of available record, therefore, the order of Revisional Court had to be considered as a remand order whereby nothing was conclusive---Remand order was within four corners of law and no illegality was committed by the Revisional Court---Applications filed by both parties were dismissed, in circumstances.