Order On the complaint of one Channaiah, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tumkur, initiated proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, against Hyamaiah and Bettaiah to prevent breach of peace arising out of disputes relating to Survey No. 2/1 of Guddethippasandra in Kunigal taluk on 27th July, 1968. 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 16th August, 1968. Hyamaiah and Bettaiah, after they appeared in Court, filed their written statements, denying the allegations made by Channaiah and the case was posted for enquiry on 8th November, 1968. On that day the Magistrate passed the following Order: “Case called. The Counsel for the 1st Party absent. The Counsel for the 2nd Party present. Case dismissed for the default of the Counsel for 1st Party”. It is this order is questioned in this revision petition. The object of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code is not to provide parties with an opportunity to bringing their civil dispute before the Criminal Court or of manoeuvring for possession for the purpose of subsequent civil litigation though that is 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 conclusion that there is apprehension of breach of peace further proceedings which he starts are not proceedings in the interest of any party. They are essentially in the interest of public peace and therefore so long as the apprehension 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 complain an and dismiss the proceedings on the ground that the complainant is absent on the date on which he is required to attend the Court. In this case, the complainant, though was not required to be present and his Counsel was absent. It would be wrong on his part to treat the informant as a complain an and dismiss the proceedings on the ground that the complainant is absent on the date on which he is required to attend the Court. In this case, the complainant, though was not required to be present and his 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 absence of the Counsel for the person on whose information proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, were initiated. The Magistrate, having taken action on the information he received from Channaiah that there was 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. I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and send back the records to him to deal with the case in accordance with law. S.V.S.----- Petition allowed.