1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3347 OF 2009 Sunil Laxman Somwanshi. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mrs. Sima Suresh Davalbhakt & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.R. Borulkar with V.V. Purwant for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Chitnis, Sr. Counsel with S.S. Kulkarni i/b. Mandar Kulkarni for Respondent 2. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 18th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- Criminal Revision Application No.726 of 2009 was an Application which was filed by the Respondents to this Writ Petition and more particularly, Respondent Nos.1 and 2. That was challenging an order passed by the Trial Court on an Application made by the present Petitioner seeking sub- Divisional Magistrate’s intervention under Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their Revision Application challenged the order of the concerned Magistrate dated 10th November 2009 by which the Magistrate directed that until the Competent Court decides the right, title and interest of 2 properties of parties to the immovable property in question, the Police Inspector, Hinjawadi Police Station is appointed Receiver thereof. 3. The grounds on which the order came to be challenged by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 principally were that the order of the sub-Divisional Magistrate, is contrary to Section 145 and more particularly, sub-Section 1 thereof. Until and unless the Magistrate indicates in the order itself that he is satisfied about the existence of dispute which is likely to cause breach of peace, he could not have appointed a Receiver. 4. After hearing Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Original Revisional Petitioners before me and the Petitioner – Opponent to the said Revision Application, the learned Sessions Judge, Pune by the impugned order held that the Magistrate has not recorded at any finding with regard to breach of peace. What has been held is that there are dispute and civil suits are pending between parties. 5. After hearing Mr. Borulkar at some length and perusing the order under challenge, I am satisfied that the Revisional Court Committed no error in allowing the Revision Application and directing that Case No.1 of 2007 is restored to the file of the concerned sub-Divisional Magistrate. In fact, he had issued directions for appearance of parties. To my mind, the Petitioner would have been well advised to appear before the Magistrate and satisfy him with regard to the pre-conditions 3 based upon which the jurisdiction under Section 145 can be exercised by him. There is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge as the learned Judge has interfered because of a patent illegality in the order of the Magistrate. The Petition is dismissed. Order of status-quo and more particularly, that of the learned Vacation Judge dated 28th December 2009 is vacated. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)