1. An objection has been taken that the Magistrate acted illegally in dropping proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code on being satisfied that no dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed.
2. It is argued that he was bound to record the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner, who might have shown by evidence that a dispute still existed, and that he should not have acted on the petition of the niece of the Zamindar who stated that she had compromised that matter in dispute between herself and the Zamindar who is the 1st Counter-petitioner.
3. In Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Barada Kanta Chowdhry 0. 30 Cal. 112 it was held that whatever the source of the Magistrate's information he might act upon it if he was satisfied that the state of things which alone would have given him jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry no longer existed and in another casein the same volume at page 161 it was pointed out that Section 145(5) gives even third parties who are interested in the land a right of intervening and showing that no dispute existed. When the Magistrate is able to ace on a police report or other information in starting proceedings under Section 145, I do not see why he should not stay further proceedings on similar information without being obliged to record such evidence as the parties may produce with the same formality as he would have done, if he had gone on with his enquiry instead of dropping it. The petitioner cannot complain that he had no opportunity of showing cause against the order that was made, as the Magistrate's order contains a full discussion of his power to drop proceedings at any stage. I decline to interfere with the order of the Magistrate on this point.
4. As regards the money deposited in Court, it appeals that the deposits made by bidders at the sale of the right to cultivate the disputed lands in fasli 332 was ordered to be returned to them. That was a proper order, as the safe was cancelled in consequence of these proceedings. The main order speaks of some other money deposited in Court. This may be the sale proceeds of crops that were standing on the lands when the lands were attached. If so, that money might have been ordered to be restored to the persons who raised the crops, as was done in Mahalakshmi v. Subbarayudu 1923 Mad. 472. But there is authority in Chenga Reddi v. Ramaswamy Goundan  1 L.W. 1032 for the orders passed in this case, viz., that the money should be kept in deposit in the Court until one party or the other obtained an order in his favour. I shall therefore allow the order to stand.
5. The Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed with costs.
6. Vakil's fee Rs. 50.