JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner in this present revision has sought for quashing a proceeding which has been initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the orders of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Sadar, Patna, dated the 12th of March, 1969 in Case no. 22(M) of 1969. There was a dispute between the parties in respect of a certain plot of land situated in the heart of the town of Patna. Previously there was a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This proceeding was later on dropped on 14.11.1968 and thereafter there was again another proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate by his impugned order dated the 12th of March, 1969. 2. At the time of the hearing of the application three-points were pressed by Mr. Ghosal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. One of these is to the effect that the entire proceeding was vitiated on account of the contravention of the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. Secondly, which has been urged is that there was a civil suit pending between the parties in respect of the same land which is numbered as Title Suit No. 183 of 1965 and therefore, in such circumstance, no proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code should have been drawn up. Thirdly it has been contended that there was previously another Title Suit numbered as 132 of 1962 in respect of the same land, but of course not between the same parties and the decision in that suit has already been in favour of the petitioner on 4.5.1968 and, therefore, the present proceeding should not have been drawn up. I will now take up each of these points which have been pressed in this revision. 3. So far as the first point is concerned, the impugned order is attacked on the ground that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate instead of directing the parties to file written statements in his court has directed them to do so in the court of Sri S.N. Sahay. The impugned order of toe learned Subdivisional Magistrate runs as follows : "Perused the show cause filed on behalf of the parties as well as considered the arguments advanced by the learned lawyers of the parties. The impugned order of toe learned Subdivisional Magistrate runs as follows : "Perused the show cause filed on behalf of the parties as well as considered the arguments advanced by the learned lawyers of the parties. Both parties claim the land in dispute and have filed documents in support of their respective cases. It is, as such, a genuine land dispute which requires thorough probe under a proceeding under Section 145 Criminal procedure Code. The proceeding is therefore converted to one under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and the land in dispute is attached under Section 145(4) Criminal Procedure Code. To the court of Sri S. N. Sahay for disposal. Let the parties appear there on 7.4.1969". The last portion of the order, therefore, shows that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate sent the case to Sri. S.N. Sahay for disposal and the parties were directed to appear before him on 7.4.1969. Sub-section (1) of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code inter alia lays down that the District Magistrate, or the Subdivisional Magistrate or the Magistrate of the First Class on being satisfied may pass an order directing the parties concerned in such dispute "to attend his court" in person or by pleader within a time to be filed by such Magistrate, and to put in their written statements of their respective claims. Mr. Ghosal appearing for the petitioner has, therefore, attacked this order on the ground that there was a contravention of a mandatory provision of law as laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code inasmuch as, the parties were directed to appear before another Magistrate and not bet ore the Subdivisional Magistrate who had started and initiated the proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Ghosal in this connection has relied un the two decisions of a Single Judge of this court, One of these is in the Case of (1) Misri Chaudhury and others versus Narsingh Prasad Tewari, reported in 2 P.L.T. (1921), page 186 and the other is (2) 24 P.L.T. (1943), page 326 (Basudeva Sinha and another Versus Ramsaroop Singh). It appears that the earliest decision in this connection is of the Calcutta High Court in the case of (3) Satish Chandra Panday versus Rajenara Narain Bagchi reported in 22 I.L.R. Calcutta (1895), page 898. This is a decision of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. It appears that the earliest decision in this connection is of the Calcutta High Court in the case of (3) Satish Chandra Panday versus Rajenara Narain Bagchi reported in 22 I.L.R. Calcutta (1895), page 898. This is a decision of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. In that case the District Magistrate made the initial order that he was satisfied of the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace and directed the parties concerned to attend the Court of a Subordinate Magistrate and to put in written statements of their respective claims. The Magistrate to whom the case was made over was empowered to make an order under Sections 145, 146 and 147 Criminal Procedure Code. A question arose also for consideration in that case whether there could be a transfer of the case and whether the parties could be directed to appear in another court which was subordinate to the Magistrate, who passed the initial order of the proceeding. It was held in that case that a proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code is an enquiry within the meaning of Section 4 Criminal Procedure Code and a general power of transfer was conferred on the District Magistrate or the Subdivisional Magistrate under Section 192 or Section 528 Criminal Procedure Code for the transfer of the case and it was not cut down by anything in Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. It was also held that the jurisdiction under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code was not personal to a particular Magistrate. There it was also argued that there was a violation of Sub-section (1) of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and in that connection there is an important observation of their Lordships as follow; “If that construction is right, it would follow that if the Magistrate who made the initial order died, or was transferred or was incapacited from any cause for going on with the enquiry, the proceeding must drop. This would frustrate the whole object of the Section .........” 4. This would frustrate the whole object of the Section .........” 4. In the case of (1) Misri Chaudhury and others versus Narsingh Prasad Tewari, reported in 2 P.L.T. (1921), page 186 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code was drawn up and in the order there was a direction to the effect as follows :- "Appear before Syed Mohammad Yakub on the 28th August 1920." It was held in that case that an order under Section 145 or 147 Criminal Procedure Code issued by one Magistrate directing the parties to appear before another Magistrate is illegal and cannot be cured. The ruling reported in (3) 22 I.L.R. Calcutta (1895), page 898 to which I have referred above was not noticed in that case, but another ruling in the case of (4) Guru Das Nag versus Gaganendra Nath Tagore (1905) 2 C.L.J., 614 was referred to and that case was distinguished because in the case reported in (1) 2 P.L.T. (1921). page 186, there was no transfer to Syed Mohammed Yakub expressly or by implication. In the case of (5) Abdul Hamid versus Hasan Raza and others, reported in A.I.R. 1923 Pama, 366, the order of the District Magistrate was as follows : "The parties to appear with their witness and show cause at Sheikhpura Dak Bungalow before Second Lieutenant Ram Prasad Narain Sahi on the 20th November. The case is transferred to his file for disposal. Evidence should be heard and the case decided on 20th November and 21st November at Sheikh pura ". In that case the ruling reported in (1) 2 P.L.T. (1921), 186 was referred to and that was distinguished in this respect that there was no order of transfer in that case, but in the case reported in (5) A.I.R. 1923 Patna, 366 there was a clear order of transfer and it was held that a proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code could be transfer" red under Sections 192 and 528 Criminal Procedure Code. There is another decision of our High Court of a Single Judge, reported in (2) 24 P.L.T.(1943), page 326 (Besudeva Sinha and another versus Ramsaroop Singh). There is another decision of our High Court of a Single Judge, reported in (2) 24 P.L.T.(1943), page 326 (Besudeva Sinha and another versus Ramsaroop Singh). In this case the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate was as follows : "I, therefore, under Section [145, Criminal Procedure Code, direct the parties noted on the margin to appear' before Babu Suraj Narain Singh, Honorary Magistrate, 1st Class, Sadar, Patna, on 29.3.1943 at 10.30 A.M., personally or by pleader and file written statements of their respective claims regarding the fact of actual possession of the disputed plot". It was held in that case that Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code clearly requires that the Magistrate drawing up the proceeding shall require the parties concerned to attend his court. It is, therefore, illegal for such Magistrate to direct the parties to appear before another Magistrate. The order was regarded as illegal and it was, therefore, set aside and held that it cannot be said to be mere irregularity. It seems that the case reported in (5) A.I.R. 1923 Patna, 366 was not noticed and the decision in (1) 2 P.L.T. (1921), 186 was followed. This case is also distinguishable because from the relevant portion which I have quoted above, it will be clear that there was no order of actual transfer of the case. 5. The learned counsels for the parties also referred to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in (6) A.I.R.1933 Allahabad, 264 (Kapoor Chand and another versus Suraj Prasad) and also a Special Bench decision of this Court reported in (7) A.I.R. 1949. Patna 146 (S.M. Yaqub and others versus T.N. Basu and another), but in those cases the point which arises for determination in this case did not actually arise there. Now in the present case, I may again refer to the order dated the 12th of March, 1969 where the word "transfer" has not been used, but the last portion of the order of the learned Subdivisional Magistrate is sufficiently indicative of the fact that he was transferring the case. The order was "to the court of Sri S.N. Sahay for disposal" and naturally a case is sent to a Magistrate for disposal when it is transferred to his file. The order was "to the court of Sri S.N. Sahay for disposal" and naturally a case is sent to a Magistrate for disposal when it is transferred to his file. It also appears from the record of the case that after the transfer the preliminary notice was also issued under the signature of Sri S.N. Sahay to whom the case had been transferred. In my opinion, having regard to the relevant provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code read along with the decisions to which I have referred above, a District Magistrate or a Subdivisional Magistrate when drawing up a proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code should direct the parties to attend his Court, but the position would be different when after drawing up such a proceeding, he transfers the case to another Magistrate which he is competent to do either under Section 192 or Section 528 Criminal Procedure Code. The position would be of course different if he does not transfer the case, but only directs the parties to appear before another Magistrate, such as it was the case in the decision reported in (1) 2 P.L.T. (1921), 186 where there was no word which could show either that expressly or by implication the case had been transferred and similar was the case in the decision reported in (5) 24 P.L.T. (1943), 326. The Magistrate when he transfers the case to another Magistrate by the same order by which he draws up the proceeding, then naturally the contingency of the parties a attending the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate does not arise and as observed in the decision reported in 22 I.L.R. Calcutta (1895), page 898 if the provisions of the Code are adhered to the letter of law then it will complicate situation because that would mean that the power and jurisdictions are personal to the Magistrate and that such power cannot be exercised in the event, the Magistrate dies or he is transferred. Here In this case as the case had been transferred so there was no contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 145 Cr. P.C. The position would have been different if there was nothing in the order to show that the case had been transferred to that Subordinate Magistrate. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore fails. 6. P.C. The position would have been different if there was nothing in the order to show that the case had been transferred to that Subordinate Magistrate. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore fails. 6. Now with regard to the contention that there was a title suit pending between the parties, there is no bar in law for the Subdivisional Magistrate to draw up a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. when another suit is also pending because the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. is a summary proceeding for the prevention of breach of the peace. It will depend on the circumstances of the case and subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. As regards the last point that there was an earlier suit in which there has been a decision, viz. Title Suit No. 132 of 1962, in favour of the petitioner, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party in which it has been contended that the dispute was not between the parties and also it did not relate to the land which is the subject matter of the present case. These two points also, therefore, fail and this application in revision is dismissed. Application dismissed