IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18273 of 2009 1. Bimla Devi, wife of Rajendra Paswan, village Hatta, PS Chenari, District Rohtas. 2. Suresh Paswan, 3. Parash Paswan, 4. Pramod Paswan, all sons of Rekha Paswan, 5. Mahendra Paswan, son of Ram Bachan Paswan, al,l of village Bharandua, Hatta, PS Chenari, District Rohtas. 6. Sheo Pyari Devi, wife of Gopal Mishra, village Mishrawalia, PS Nokha, District Rohtas – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Kalindi Devi, wife of Kedar Nath Mishra, village and PS Chenari, District Rohtas – Opposite parties. 2 4.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners being aggrieved have filed this application for quashing the order, dated 26.6.2006 and 17.11.2003 passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Sasaram in Case No. 1753/2003. As far as the order, dated 17.11.2003 initiating proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the court is not inclined to interfere with that order. The order, dated 26.6.2006 indicates that the Subdivisional Magistrate, Sasaram received an application from the Officer Incharge that there is likelihood of breach of peace over the plots in question and as such the Magistrate appointed the Anchal Adhikari as the receiver of the crops standing over the lands which are the subject matter of dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier the Officer Incharge of Chenari P.S. within Rohtas district had filed 2 an application for appointment of receiver but as the same was defective as it did not contain the description of the lands in question, the Magistrate rejected the requisition of the Officer Incharge, Chenari. Subsequent thereto, the present application was filed by the Officer Incharge. Section 146 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to initiate proceedings to prevent breach of peace over the land under dispute. The Magistrate has to prima facie consider whether any of the parties are in possession of the land or the Subdivisional Officer / Magistrate finds that one or the other person is in possession and if there is likelihood of breach of peace, he may take steps for maintaining law and order by initiating a proceeding under section 146 Cr.P.C. The order impugned does not indicate that the Magistrate while passing has applied his mind and come to a conclusion with respect to the requirement which needs to be fulfilled before initiating a proceeding under section 146 Cr.P.C. I accordingly direct that the order, dated 26.6.2006 shall continue till such time as the Subdivisional Magistrate shall hear both the parties and passes an order recording that he is satisfied that there is likelihood of breach of peace and that none of the parties are in possession of the lands in question or he is satisfied that any one of the party appears to be in possession of the land. Such an order should be passed after giving due notice to the parties and hearing them within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 3 This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)