JUDGMENT V. D. Misra, C. J.—By an order dated 20th May, 1983 I had quashed the impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I now proceed to give the reasons. 2. Shri Digamber Jain Sabha, Simla, is a Society (referred to as the Society) registered under the Societies Registration Act. Shri M. D. Jain is is the secretary of the Society. The Society had been running a free Homoepathic dispensary known as Shri Digamber Jain Free Homoeopathic Dispensary, Shimla, in the building known as Shri Digamber Jain Dharamsala Building, Simla. It had employed one Dr. G. K. Kohli, a Homoeopath, to run the dispensary. He was employed on 15th Jude, 1967. At one time Dr. Kohli left the service but was re-employed on 16th August, 1973. On 10th October, 1982 the Executive Committee of the Society took a decision to close the Homoeopathic Dispensary and open either an Allopathic or Ayurvedic dispensary. This decision was approved by the general body of the Society in its meeting held on 23rd March, 1983. The result was that the services of Dr. Kohli were terminated on 1st April, 1983 and he was offered one months salary in lieu of the notice according to the terms of his employment. But Dr. Kohli refused to accept the salary. He also refused to hand over the charge of dispensary. On the other hand on 2nd April, 1983 Dr. Kohli put his lock on the door of the dispensary. 3. On 3rd April, 1983 Dr. Kohli went to police station Sadar, Shimla, and lodged a report at 10. 30 A. M. This was recorded at serial No. 6 of the daily diary of the police station. Briefly stated, the report is to the effect that he (Dr. Kohli) had been working in the Homoeopathic dispensary for about 13 years. In 1981 he became (he Registrars and so all the members of the Executive of the Society became jealous and wanted to get rid of him. It was stated that the Society had given him a notice terminating his service and he was asked to hand over the charge of the dispensary. It was also averred that they wanted to take forcible possession of the dispensary. The police found that the dispute was of a civil nature and was not-cognizable. It was stated that the Society had given him a notice terminating his service and he was asked to hand over the charge of the dispensary. It was also averred that they wanted to take forcible possession of the dispensary. The police found that the dispute was of a civil nature and was not-cognizable. A copy of the report was handed over to Dr. Kohli and he was advised to approach the court. In order to ensure that there was no breach of peace, it was decided to advise the Managing Committee of the Society. 4. Thereafter on 12th April, 1983 the Society as well as it Secretary made a petition before this Court udder section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. M. P. (M) No. 111 of 1983) making the Station House Officer (S. H. O.) of police station Sadar, Shimla, as a respondent. It was prayed that the (S. H. O.) be directed to remove the lock and the seal put on the door of the dispensary. It was averred that on 6th April, 1983 an Assistant, Sub- Inspector (A. S. I.) accompanied by a constable had come to the office of the Society and questioned why the dispensary was closed down and the services of Dr. Kohli terminated. Statement of Shri B. K. Jain, Treasurer of the Society, was also recorded. I will presently advert to the statements recorded by the A. S. I. Suffice it to notice that on 7th April, 1983 at about 8 15 P. M. it is alleged, the same A. S. I. accompanied by a constable came to the building of the Society and put a fresh lock on the dispensary after removing the lock of the Society. He also put a seal on this lock. It is also averred that no inquiry was conducted despite the protest of the secretary of the Society. It is also stated that the secretary of the Society went to the police station to inquire as to why the police had put its lock but he was given no information. 5. This petition came up before the Court on 14th April, 1983 when notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why the petition should not be allowed. On 28th April, 1983 the Sub-Inspector of the police station was also present in the Court. 5. This petition came up before the Court on 14th April, 1983 when notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why the petition should not be allowed. On 28th April, 1983 the Sub-Inspector of the police station was also present in the Court. The relevant part of the order of that date is to the following effect : "He (the Sub-Inspector) states that this Dr. Kohli had come again and had stated that there was a danger of the present petitioners taking forcible possession of the dispensary. It is further stated that it was in view of this position that a kalendra and prepared and sent to the Magistrate for taking action under section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure However, the Sub-Inspector categorically states that no report of Dr. Kohli was recorded on the subsequent day on the basis of which further action was taken." In the mean time the Society received a notice from Shri Bhagwant Singh, Executive Magistrate [General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioners], Shimla, under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, The secretary of the Society, Sari D. Jain, now filed another petition Cr. M. P. (M) No. 143 of 1983) asking for the quashing of the proceedings pending before the Executive Magistrate. Record was sent for. It was noticed that the first order passed by the Magistrate was dated 19th April, 1983, that is, after notice had been served on the S. H. O. in respect of the previous proceedings in Cr. M. P., (M) No. 111 of 1983. 6. Mr. Malkiat Singh, Assistant Advocate General, drew my attention to the fact that kalendra under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was forwarded by the S. H. O. on 6th April, 1983 and, therefore, the proceedings under section 145 of tie Code of Criminal Procedure are not a counter-blast to the aforementioned show cause notice issued to the S. H. O. I may record that in that case on the first date of hearing I had asked the Deputy Advocate General of the State, who was present at the time of hearing about the law empowering the police to seal the promises in question on 6th April, 1983, Even on the subsequent date, that is, on 28th April, 1983, I had asked Mr. Malkiat Singh as well as the S. H. O. to show me the provision of law under which the police had sealed the premises. They were unable to show me any. 7. I would now straightway scrutinise the kalendra. After re-producing Dr. Kohlis report recorded on 3rd April, 1983, it is stated that A. S. I. (Gurditta Ram) went to the scene to make inquiries. But it may be noticed that this kalendra conveniently omits the fact that the copy of a report was given to Dr. Kohli since the dispute was found to be of a civil nature and he was advised to approach the court. The kalendra proceeds to record the fact that statements of the persons at the scene were recorded. The secretary of the Society as well as Dr. Kohli had put up their separate locks on the door of the dispensary. Between the lines there is an addition of the words "thus the dispute" continuous to exist between the two parsies. Thereafter a recommendation is made to the court to start the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the end there is again addition of the words Homoeopathic dispensary has been locked which has been sealed with a seal of T I may, at this stage, record that I questioned A.S.I. Gurditta Ram, who had prepared this kalendra whether he had added the aforementioned sentences produced in inverted commas after he had prepared the kalendra and submitted it to the S. H. O. The A. S. I. answered that he had added the sentences on the direction of the S. H. O. Before I proceed further, I will take notice of the statements recorded by the A. S. I. and which were sent alongwith the kalendra. 8. There is a statement of Dr. Kohli. It is dated 6th April, 1983. He has described how he was employed by the Society and the homoeopathic medicines had been put in his charge. He has stated that he used to lock the dispensary and that it was on 2nd April, 1933 that the secretary of the Society told him that the Society will put their locks and terminate his service. Not a word has been stated by Dr. Kohli that there was likelihood of breach of peace. Statement of Shri M. D. Jain secretary of, the Society was also recorded. Not a word has been stated by Dr. Kohli that there was likelihood of breach of peace. Statement of Shri M. D. Jain secretary of, the Society was also recorded. He has stated, in a nut-shell, that on 1st April, 1983 Dr. Kohli was served with a notice of termination of his service and has put the lock on the dispensary. Again there is not even a whisper of any likelihood of breach of peace. Statement of one Shri Man Mohan Khanna. Advocate, who lives opposite the Societys Dharamsala, was also recorded. Ha has stated that Dr. Kohli had been working in a dispensary for a very long time and that this doctor used to open and close the dispensary. Statement of one Shri Brij Kumar Jain has also been recorded. He is a member of the Society. He has stated that the dispensary is the property of the Society and the dispensary room is in possession of the Society in which the dispensary is being run. This is all the evidence on which the kalendra was prepared. Alongwith the kalendra has been sent a photostat copy of the letter of appointment of Dr. Kohli dated 15-6-1961. A copy of the notice dated 1-4-1983 addressed to Dr. Kohli terminating his service has also been enclosed. 9. It is thus obvious that no one complained of any likelihood of breach of peace. Nothing material happened between 3rd and 6th April, 1983 justifying making of the kalendra. Neither Dr. Kohli nor the secretary of the Society were out to use force to settle the question of possession of the dispensary. Dr. Kohli had already been advised by the police to approach the court since the dispute was of a civil nature. And what could be the dispute ? Dr. Kohli was admittedly employed by the Society to run the dispensary. The Society closed the dispensary and terminated Dr, Kohlis service. The dispensary was stocked with medicines belonging to the Society. Dr. Kohli neither had any claim nor was he claiming his right to possess the room in which the dispensary was being run. There is nothing even to show that Dr. Kohli was ever putting his own lock. Being incharge of the dispensary he seems to have been provided with locks by the Society and the keys of the same were with Dr. There is nothing even to show that Dr. Kohli was ever putting his own lock. Being incharge of the dispensary he seems to have been provided with locks by the Society and the keys of the same were with Dr. Kohli since he was the only person made responsible for running the dispensary. It appears that for the reasons best known to the S. H. O. of police station Sadar, he blew this minor misunderstanding out of all proportions, illegally sealed the premises and tried to justify the sealing by sending a kalendra without any basis. It was an act of highhandedness. In case there was any development subsequent to 3rd April, 1983, it should have been recorded in the daily diary of the police station. Admittedly there is no record showing any untoward development. Mr. M. L. Sharma, learned counsel for Dr. Kohli, frankly admitted that there is no allegation of fear of breach of peace by any one. 10. Noticing that the Kalendra bears the date of 6th April, 1983, I wanted to find out the circumstances under which it did not reach the Executive Magistrate till 19th April, 1983, the date by which the State as well as the S. H. O. knew that this Court had issued a show cause notice in Cr. M. P. (M) No. 111 of 1983. The record of the Magistrate shows that the matter came up for hearing for the first time before him on 19th April, 1983.1 was informed by Mr. Malkiat Singh that the Kalendra was sent to the court on 7th April, 1983. In this connection a despatch book of the police station has been placed before me. I am further informed that the Kalendra was received by the Naib-Court. What happened to the Kalendra thereafter is anyones guess since no one has been able to give me the information. But if it remained pending from 7th April, 1983 to 19th April, 1983 in the court of the Executive Magistrate without any action being taken, then this fact itself speaks volume as to how the office of the Executive Magistrate Is being run. Any delay in taking action in cases sent up under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a very serious matter indeed. It has to be remembered that action is required to be taken as a preventive measure to prevent breach of peace. Any delay in taking action in cases sent up under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a very serious matter indeed. It has to be remembered that action is required to be taken as a preventive measure to prevent breach of peace. A long unexplained delay in taking action by itself shows that there was indeed no danger of breach of peace. It is nobodys case that till I9th April, 1983 anything happened which might suggest a likelihood of breach of peace. Though these facts are sufficient to quash the proceedings, I am constrained to record how the Executive Magistrate is performing his duties. The impugned order taking cognizance on the matter shows that the Magistrate never cared to read the kalendra or the statements of the witnesses which were sent with it. Some one in the office seemed to have prepared this order. I say this because of the glaring English mistakes made in the order. For example,"......... there were four objects of the Jain Dharamsala as to advertise the religion. Run over the dispensary ......." (emphasis supplied) After reciting the facts in brief the Magistrate has proceed to use the stereotype sentence that he is satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists. A notice seems to have been issued on 23rd April, 1983 as is apparent from a noting on the margin of the order. This is a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness with which the matter under section 145 was being treated. The order does not show if the Magistrate ever realised the police sealing the dispensary without any legal authority. Had he realised that he would have passed some order about it. I would expect the Executive Magistrate to very seriously ponder over the matter while initiating proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as they result in serious consequence to one party. In the instant case it appears that the learned Magistrate without applying his mind or perhaps without even looking at the record decided to sign the stereotype order simply because the police had asked him to do so. The Magistrate should have remembered that his satisfaction has to be arrived at not because of the ipse dixit of the police but after applying his mind to the facts laid before him. The Magistrate should have remembered that his satisfaction has to be arrived at not because of the ipse dixit of the police but after applying his mind to the facts laid before him. It may again be noticed that in the kalendra also there is not even a word that there is a likelihood of the breach of peace because of the dispute between the parties. Simply because the dispute exists, which is admittedly of a civil nature, it does not follow that there is a likelihood of breach of peace and so action under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be taken. It may be repeated that this provision is a preventive one. The object is to ensure that no breach of peace takes place. If there is nothing on the record to show that anyone was complaining of any danger to breach of peace and nothing had transpired between 3rd to 19th April, 1983, there was no reason to initiate the proceedings. 11. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel for Dr. Kohli, submits that since the proceedings have to be started by the Magistrate on his satisfaction, this Court cannot interfere. I am afraid I cannot agree. It is true that the subjective satisfaction is to be that of the Magistrate and this satisfaction can be had either on the basis of a police report or from any other information. However, if there was any other information with the Magistrate, it should have been on the record. Any other information does not mean something to the knowledge of the Magistrate which does not find place on the record. 12. This Court in Moti and others v. State and others, 1976 Cr. LJ. 1956, held that in the absence of any evidence it cannot be said that the Magistrate had sufficient material to satisfy himself about the existence of a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace which is a condition precedent necessary to give the Magistrate jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under this section. 13. I would, therefore, set-aside the impugned order, quash the proceedings initiated under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and direct the police to remove its locks forthwith as they had no jurisdiction to seal the premises in question. Petition allowed.