JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raisinghnagar by which he exercising the powers under the proviso of section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure withdrew the order of attachment passed by him in the proceedings pending in his Court under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition are as under : Hanuman Singh father of non-petitioner No. 3 filed a complaint in the police to the effect that there was an agreement to sale, executed on April 22, 1969 between Virendra Singh (Pretty No. 1 non-petitioner) and Rajendra Singh (Party No. 2-petitioner). That in pursuance of that agreement Rajendra Singh made a payment of Rs. 22,000/- to Virendra Singh. The possession of land was handed over to Rajendra Singh and Virendra Singh authorised Hanuman Singh to execute the sale-deed on his behalf. Hanuman Singh used to look-after and cultivate the land in question on behalf of Rajendra Singh as the latter was out in Navy service. The grievance of Hanuman Singh was that Virendra Singh wanted to take advantage of the position of the sale deed not being registered and therefore, committed criminal trespass on the land in question and threw away the articles lying there. Hanuman Singh filed a complaint under section 379, 147 and 149 Indian Penal Code against Virendra Singh and others. Police apprehending the breach of peace in connection with the disputed land initiated the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, on August 22, 1980. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in view of the facts and circumstances of the case drew a preliminary order under section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and attached the land. The Tehsildar Anoopgarh was appointed receiver by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on the same date. Meanwhile, Virendra Singh obtained an injunction order from the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Anoopgarh in his favour. Virendra Singh challenged the order of attachment passed on February 28, 1980 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar by filing a revision petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the order dated March 27, 1980 rejected the application. Meanwhile, Virendra Singh obtained an injunction order from the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Anoopgarh in his favour. Virendra Singh challenged the order of attachment passed on February 28, 1980 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar by filing a revision petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the order dated March 27, 1980 rejected the application. Gulab Singh son of Hanuman Singh has filed an application before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on April 21, 1980 praying therein that as the whereabouts of his father Hanuman Singh were not known for a pretty long period, he may be permitted to contest the case and lead evidence on behalf of Hanuman Singh. That application was rejected by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on April 24, 1980. On August 19, 1980 Virendra Singh submitted an application that as Hanuman Singh was absent for a long time from his residential village and Rajendra Singh was in Military Service, there was no likelihood of any breach of peace and therefore, the order of attachment of disputed land may be withdrawn and the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be dropped, Rajendra Singh filed an application in the Court that on coming to know about the proceedings regarding the Land in question he had appeared and therefore, he may be permitted to participate in the proceedings. The application of Rajendra Singh was allowed. However in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated October 28, 1980 Annexure-9 withdrew the attachment and directed the receiver to hand over the possession of the land in dispute to Virendra Singh. In compliance to that order Virendra Singh was put possession of the land on October 28, 1980. It is in grievance with the order Annexure-9 dated October 28, 1980 withdrawing the attachment, that Rajendra Singh has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 3. It has been strenuously contended by Mr. In compliance to that order Virendra Singh was put possession of the land on October 28, 1980. It is in grievance with the order Annexure-9 dated October 28, 1980 withdrawing the attachment, that Rajendra Singh has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 3. It has been strenuously contended by Mr. S K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner that once the Court arrived at a conclusion that there was likelihood of breach of peace and passed the order under section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no justification in withdrawing the order of attachment, especially in the circumstances of the case when proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were still going on and Rajendra Singh, the person authorised to the possession of the land in pursuance of the agreement of sale executed between him and Virendra Singh has turned out and wanted to participate in the proceedings. That the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not taken into consideration the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, apprehending the imminent danger of breach of peace and also the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed on March 27, 1980 in the revision petition tiled by Virendra Singh, challenging the attachment order dated February 28, 1980. Mr. Goyal further contended that unless there is any agreement between the parties to the proceeding, the Court concerned should not order for withdrawal of attachment and entrustment of possession to any one of them. 4. Mrs. Renu Chatterjee, learned counsel for the non-petitioner Gulab Singh supporting the arguments of Mr. Goyal submitted that Gulab Singh is the son of Hanuman Singh and as the land in question was in possession of Hanuman Singh at the time of the order of attachment and proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated by the police in pursuance of the complaint lodged by Hanuman Singh. Gulab Singh was the proper person to look after the interest of his father as well as his own, and therefore, in view of his application that he should be allowed to participate in the proceedings, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate should not have passed an order in favour of Virendra Singh putting him in possession of the property. 5. Mr. Gulab Singh was the proper person to look after the interest of his father as well as his own, and therefore, in view of his application that he should be allowed to participate in the proceedings, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate should not have passed an order in favour of Virendra Singh putting him in possession of the property. 5. Mr. S.R. Singhi, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1, trying to justify the order under revision strongly contended that Hanuman Singh not being present for along time and Rajendra Singh being out at his place of posting in the Navy, there was no question of any likelihood of bi each of peace and therefore, the learned Magistrate had not in anyway proceeded illegally in withdrawing the attachment order. These arguments were also endorsed by the learned Public Prosecutor. At the very out set I may observe that the proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and therefore, while deciding this revision petition this Court is not expected to deal with the title or the claims of the different parties in the proceedings. The subject matter of the present revision petition is in a very narrow compass. All that is to be decided is whether the order Annexure-9 passed on October 28, 1980 could not be justified because of the appearance of Rajendra Singh and application filed by Gulab Singh to permit him to be participate in the proceedings. 6. Section 146(1) deals with the powers of the concerned Magistrate to attach Subject of the dispute and appointment of receiver. Proviso of that sub-section empowers the Magistrate to withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. 7. The impugned order has been passed in view of this provision to Sec. 146(1). Mr. Goyal as well as Mrs. Renu Chatterjee do not dispute the powers of the Magistrate to withdraw the attachment at any time, but their grievance is that the circumstance of the present case do not envisage any such situation when the order under section 146(1) was passed after proper enquiry into the matter. 8. Mr. Goyal as well as Mrs. Renu Chatterjee do not dispute the powers of the Magistrate to withdraw the attachment at any time, but their grievance is that the circumstance of the present case do not envisage any such situation when the order under section 146(1) was passed after proper enquiry into the matter. 8. It is pertinent to note that there cannot be any hard and fast rule as to when should the proviso be applied rather it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and it is the satisfaction of the Court concerned which may justify the exercise of the powers vested in it by this proviso. 9. The report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was at the initial stage and the order of attachment was in pursuance of that report. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar relates to March 27, 1980. The learned Additional Sessions Judges had refused to interfere in the order attachment dated February 28, 1980 passed while drawing the preliminary order and subsequently maintained by the order dated Match 17, 1980 on the ground that there were no compelling circumstances which may justify the interference when the learned Magistrate has exercised the description in view of the affidavits filed by the party No. 2 Hanuman Singh that there was an imminent danger of breach of peace while Virendra Singh party No. 1 had not supported his reply controverting the contention of an imminent danger of breach of peace by an affidavit. The impugned order Annexure-9 has been passed in the month of October, seven months after the order of the learned Sessions Judge, justifying the order of attachment and the appointment of receiver. In such circumstances, change of situation during that period of seven months has to be considered and it is to be seen whether the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had material before him to proceed under the proviso of Sec. 146(1) of the Cods of Criminal Procedure. 10. Gulab Singh had filed an application on April 21, 1980 to the effect that the whereabouts of his father Hanuman Singh, party No. 2. were not known since March 22, 1980 and he suspects that Virendra Singh or his relatives might have got Hanuman Singh murdered or confined him some where with that intention. 10. Gulab Singh had filed an application on April 21, 1980 to the effect that the whereabouts of his father Hanuman Singh, party No. 2. were not known since March 22, 1980 and he suspects that Virendra Singh or his relatives might have got Hanuman Singh murdered or confined him some where with that intention. In that application Gulab Singh had submitted that his father Hanuman Singh was cultivating the land in question and therefore, he may be substituted as party No. 2 in the absence of Hanuman Singh. That application was rejected by the Court on April 24, 1980. That order of rejection was not challenged by Gulab Singh by way of any revision petition. Hence, Gulab Singh cannot challenge the legality or impropriety of the impugned order Annexure-9. 11. So far as Rajendra Singh is concerned it is pertinent to note, that lie being in the Navy service his notice in the proceedings could not be served. An application was filed by him on August 27, 1980 with the request that on August 16, 1980 to know through a letter dated August 10, 1989 sent by Laxman Singh that proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were going on in the Court and receiver has been appointed because of likelihood of breach of peace. Arguments were heard on that application as well as the application filed by Virendra Singh on August 19, 1980 praying for withdrawal of order of attachment and removal of receiver. Roth the applications were decided by the impugned order Annexure-9. The order dated April 24, 1980 by which it was ordered that as Virendra Singh could not be served, further efforts need not be made, was set aside. As stated earlier, the application dated August 19, 1980 filed by Virandra Singh was allowed and the order of attachment was withdrawn. 12. The important question requiring consideration is whether after the appearance of Rajendra Singh it was incumbent upon the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to continue the attachment of the property in dispute under section 146(1) and there was no reason for him to hold that there was any likelihood of breach of peace. The impugned order clearly mentions that at the time of the initial attachment Rajendra Singh was present and Mr. Goyal his learned counsel also does not dispute this position. The point insisted upon by Mr. The impugned order clearly mentions that at the time of the initial attachment Rajendra Singh was present and Mr. Goyal his learned counsel also does not dispute this position. The point insisted upon by Mr. Goyal is that the learned Magistrate has not mentioned in the order that he was satisfied that the situation in which the order under section 146(1) was passed does not exist. This is correct that the learned Magistrate has not in so many words mentioned this in the order but the perusal of the order clearly shows that he had given various reasons for his conclusion that there was no likelihood of breach of peace any more. If he had given the reasons for his conclusion and had not inserted the words that he was satisfied, then in my opinion the order cannot be said to be perverse on that count alone. The question of the learned Magistrate enquiring from the parties whether they agreed that there was no likelihood of breach of peace does not arise because Hanuman Singh, who had apprehended the breach of peace was no more before the Court and Rajendra Singh had nowhere come up with that case. The two authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not help him because of the peculiar circumstances in those cases. In the case of Narul Hasan and another v. Mt. Majidan, AIR 1914 Allahabad 210 the conclusion of the learned Magistrate that there was no longer any danger of a breach of the peace was considered to be improper for the reason that shortly before that order he had held that there was a likelihood of the breach of the peace between the parties to the proceedings and immediately after the order was passed the aggrieved party had moved an application before the District Magistrate. 13. In the present case the party which apprehended the breach of the peace had ceased to appear in the Court and therefore, there arises no question of the parties agreeing to the change of atmosphere subsequent to the order of attachment. 14. In the case of Govindan Parameswaran Padanayar v. Kunjan Padamanabhan Nair and others the learned Judge had insisted upon the agreement between the parties to the proceedings in order to enable the Court to apply the proviso of Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. 14. In the case of Govindan Parameswaran Padanayar v. Kunjan Padamanabhan Nair and others the learned Judge had insisted upon the agreement between the parties to the proceedings in order to enable the Court to apply the proviso of Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. The circumstances of the present case are peculiar. The person on whose behalf the applicant Hanuman Singh is said to be in possession of the land was not at all in the picture for a pretty long time and Rajendra Singh even after his putting in appearance, did not raise the point that there was any likelihood of any breach of peace. The person at whose instance the proceedings were initiated was no longer there to agitate the matter and therefore, the learned Magistrate in my view was quite justified in withdrawing the order of attachment. 16. Regarding the entrustment of possession of Virendra Singh suffice it to say that the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are still pending and the learned Magistrate has yet to arrive at the conclusion as to who was entitled to the possession finally. He was not to enter into the question of title to the property. Hence, if in view of the facts that the primafacie it was Virendra Singh whose crop was there on the disputed field at the time of the receiver taking possession of the same, there was full justification for the learned Magistrate in directing the receiver to handover the possession to Virendra Singh. If the learned Magistrate has used his discretion after properly enquiring into the matter and taking into consideration, the changed circumstances of the case the order does not call for any interference by this Court. 17. Consequently, the revision petition having no merits is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******