IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10787 of 2010 1. MADHO SINGH son of late Somrau Singh 2. Dharmednra Singh son of Madho Singh 3. Kameshwar Singh son of late Malachhu Singh 4. Yogendra Singh @ Yogendra Kumar Singh 5. Sikandar Singh Both sons of Kameshwar Singh 6. Sudheshwar Singh son of late Malachhu Singh 7. Rajan Singh 8. Sajan Singh 9. Ramjee Singh @ Ramjit Singh Sons of Sudheshwar Singh All resident of village Dihra, P. S. Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur. … Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bali Ram Singh son of Sabhagati Singh 3. Mohan Mati Devi w/o Bali Ram Singh 4. Suraj Singh son of Sabhagati Singh 5. Krishna Nand Singh son of Sabhagati Singh All are resident of village Dihri, P. S. Udwantnagar District- Bhojpur. … opposite parties. ----------- 2. 31.03.2010 Heard Mr. Dhruv Narayan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that the order of attachment under Section 146(i) has been passed by the court below even after being apprised that a title suit between the parties for the same piece of land was pending consideration. He would further submit that satisfaction drawn by learned magistrate as with regard to apprehension of breach of 2 peace and imminent threat to the possession of land in question has arrived at in absence of any authentic material including a police report and infact appears to be based on the submission of both the parties. This court however on perusal of materisl on record would find that in the impugned order there is a reference of a police report dated 29.7.2009 in the impugned order and therefore it cannot be said that learned magistrate had no independent source of information with regard to apprehension of breach of peace as recorded by him in the impugned order. It is true that a title suit in question is pending between the parties but then if there be an imminent danger to the property and also apprehension of breach of peace on that score, learned magistrate in seisin of the matter can not be denuded of his power to pass an order under Section 146 of the code of criminal procedure. In the circumstances, sole question which would emerge for consideration is whether 145 proceeding was maintainable inasmuch as if 145 proceeding was required to be gone into and there was apprehension of breach of peace as recorded in the impugned order, the 3 order of attachment based on police report clearly suggesting apprehension of breach of peace cannot be faulted in law. The Legislature in its wisdom has however provided under Section 145(5) Cr.P.C. an enabling power to the court to drop the proceedings at any point of time. In that view of the matter, while this court would not interfere with the order of attachment but then would remit the matter back to learned magistrate to reconsider its decision with regard dropping 145 proceedings itself on account of pendency of title suit. In the event, the petitioners would file an application invoking provision under Section 145(5) Cr.P C., the learned magistrate will dispose it of by an speaking order within a period of one month from the date of its filing. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)