C. Honniah, J.
1. On the complaint of one Channaiah, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tumkur, initiated proceedings Under Section 145, Criminal P.C. against Hyanmaiah and Bettaiah to prevent breach of peace arising out of disputes relating to survey No. 2/1 of Guddethippa sandra in Kunigal Taluk on 27-7,68. Notices were issued to Hyamaiah and Bettaiah. Even before these two persons appeared in Court, the land in dispute was attached by the Magistrate by his order dated 16-8-1968. Hyamaiah and Bettaiah, after they appeared in Court, filed their written statement?, denying the allegations made by Channaiah and the case was posted for enquiry on 8-11-1968. On that day the Magistrate passed the following order:
Case called. The counsel for the 1st party absent. The counsel for the II party present. Case dismissed for the default of the counsel for 1st party.
It is this order that is questioned in this revision petition.
2. The object of Section 145, Criminal P.C., is not to provide parties with an opportunity of . bringing their Civil dispute before the Criminal Court or of manoeuvring for possession for the purpose of subsequent civil litigation though that ia often the effect of such proceedings, but to enable the Magistrate concerned to maintain peace within the area for which he is responsible. Once on information brought to his notice the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is apprehension of breach of peace further proceedings which he starts are not proceedings in the interest of any party. They ace essentially in the interest of public peace and therefore so long as the apprehension of (breach of) public peace subsists it is the duty of the Magistrate to continue the proceedings and pass some suitable order which will prevent the breach of peace. It would be wrong on his part to treat the informant as a complainant and dismiss the proceedings on the ground that the complainant is absent on the date on which he is required to attend the Court.
3. In this case, the complainant, though was not required to be present, was pre. sent and bis counsel was absent. The learned Magistrate, in those circumstances was wholly wrong in construing the proceedings as if it were a complaint filed by a private party and secondly he was in. error to proceed to dismiss the complaint because of the ab. sence of tha counsel for the person on whose information proceedings Under Section 145. Criminal P. 0, were initiated. The Magistrate, having taken action on the information he received from Channaiah that there waa likelihood of breach of peace with a view to prevent the same, could not have dismissed the complaint for the reasons stated by him. The order passed by the Magistrate is illegal.
4. I, therefore allow this revision patition, set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and send back the records to him to deal with the case in accordance with Law.