M. Wahajuddin, J.
1. It would appear that the Magistrate passed a preliminary order in this case on receiving police report dated 21-2-1978. This preliminary order was passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate that there is an apprehension of breach of peace. Written statement was invited. The entire proceedings continued and were even concluded and the Magistrate has then observed that there is no apprehension of breach of peace, nor there existed any such apprehension on 27-2-1978 or within the period of two months prior to it, hence the application Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
2. The applicant went in revision and that order was upheld by the Court of revision also.
3. The order is assailed on the ground that the circumstances did not change after the preliminary order was passed and the preliminary order establishes that there did exist an apprehension of breach of peace to the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate. When such order was passed, the Magistrate, therefore, could not drop the proceedings in the manner it has been done.
4. There are two errors manifest in this case. The law is well settled. A Magistrate cannot review his earlier order. When that is the position, the Magistrate when passing the final order on 13-3-1979 could not hold that any apprehension of breach of peace did not exist at an when the preliminary order was passed. The police report has been annexed as Annexure '1' to the application. It mentioned of the dispute between the parties centering round the property. It further recited that the property may be attached, so that peace may be maintained. While I do feel that the police reports should be exhaustive, I also find that once it was mentioned that attachment is desirable to maintain peace, it implied that apprehension of breach of peace did exist.
It is also noteworthy that Under Section 145(1) Criminal p. C., the language used is that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists. It is not that the breach should have necessarily taken place. What has to be considered is whether there is any dispute between the parties, which may cause apprehension of likely breach of peace. So far as that matter goes, the police report indicated that the attachment is necessary to maintain peace meaning thereby that an apprehension of breach of peace did exist. Getting satisfied subjectively, the Magistrate proceeded with the proceeding up to its conclusion. There were no changed circumstances, which could indicate that the dispute has been resolved and, consequently, apprehension of breach of peace no more exists. Observations in Rajpati v. Bachan, (1980 Cri Aprj R (SC) 265 :1980 Cri LJ 1276) are relevant on the point. In fact, the dispute stood as it was on the date of passing of the preliminary order. Apart from that, one of the parties, namely, Lala Ram did state that lathi blows wore exchanged, although not resulting in any injuries. Some other witnesses, though not deposing any such actual incident, nevertheless stated that the quarrels took place on claim for partition. When that is the position, the Magistrate should have given a finding about the possession itself within two months of the material date laid down in the Criminal P. C, as to pass an order under Sub-clause (6) of Section 145, Cr. P, C. I may, however, make it clear that if the finding of the Magistrate is that the property is a joint property, the proceedings Under Section 145 Cr.P.C., would not continue and will have to be dropped on that consideration. That is again a matter of fact to be decided by the Magistrate.
5. The application Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. The order of the Magistrate dated 13-3-79(Annexure '3') and the order dated 29-8-80 of the II Additional Sessions Judge (Annexure '4') are both quashed and the Magistrate is directed to hear the arguments afresh and proceed in the light of the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law.