JUDGMENT 1. We think that this rule must be made absolute, and upon a simple ground. It appears upon the statements of both the parties that there are persons other than the parties who are actually contesting about the possession of the land, interested in it, or, at any rate interested in claiming it. On the side of the first party we have at least one person Basanta Kumar Das, who is alleged by that party to be in possession jointly with him ; and, on the other side, we have Baikuntha Nath Das, the landlord of the second party, who is alleged by that party to be in de facto possession of some of the plots of land involved in these proceedings, The matter was distinctly disclosed in the written statements of the two parties, as also in the police-report, which was made the foundation of the proceeding recorded by the Magistrate under sec. 145, Cr. P. C. These persons, who are necessary parties, have not been made parties to the proceedings : and it seems to us, in view of the decisions which have been passed by this Court from time to time, see, for instance, Laldhari Singh v. Sukdeo Narain Singh 4 C. W. N. 613 ; s. c. I. L. R. 27 Cal. 892 (1900) and Anesh Mollah v. Ejahar Uddi Mollah 5 C. W. N. 428 (1901), that the principal object which a proceeding under sec. 145 aims at, viz., prevention of a breach of the peace, could not be achieved if these persons Basanta Kumar Das and Baikuntha Nath Das were not made parties to the proceedings. In this connection, we may also refer to the case of Protap Narain Singh v. Rajendra Narain Singh 1 C. W. N. 3 ; s. c. I. L. R. 24 Cal. 55 (1896), decided by a Full Bench of this Court, where it was held that it is the duty of the Magistrate before he initiated proceedings under sec. 145, Cr. P. C., not only to be satisfied that a dispute exists, but also to ascertain, so far as is possible, who are the parties concerned in the dispute. 2. 55 (1896), decided by a Full Bench of this Court, where it was held that it is the duty of the Magistrate before he initiated proceedings under sec. 145, Cr. P. C., not only to be satisfied that a dispute exists, but also to ascertain, so far as is possible, who are the parties concerned in the dispute. 2. It does not appear that the Magistrate in this case made any endeavour in that direction, and, in the face of the statements made in the written statements filed by both the parties, it seems to us that the Magistrate ought not to have proceeded with this matter, without bringing in the necessary parties to the proceedings. Upon these grounds we are of opinion that the order of the Magistrate should be set aside, as without jurisdiction.