V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) BY this Misc. Criminal Petition the petitioner prays for quashing the notice dt. 29-6-85 issued by respondent No. 1 under directions of the respondent No. 2, as contained in his letter No. 149 S. D. M. /85 dt. 28-6-85 thereby calling upon the petitioner to stop construction on his land. ( 2 ) THE petitioners case is that he purchased land bearing Survey No. 1166/2 situated in Katkatpura Indore from one Jageshwar by registered sale deed dt. 7-10-83 and has been in possession of the said land. They have also obtained necessary permission from the Authorities concerned for construction of a building on the said land (Annexure-Il ). Construction was started on 5-2-85 and till the filing of the present petition, he had spent almost Rs. 2000. 00 over construction. ( 3 ) ON 29-6-85 the petitioner had received a notice from the respondent No. 1 directing him to stop construction. The notice has been filed by the applicant as Annexure-Ill. The petitioner on receipt of this notice (Annexure-Ill) contacted the respondents No. 1 and 2 and moved an application placing all facts requesting them to permit construction but in vain. Hence the present petition. ( 4 ) GOING through the record which has been received from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Indore, the respondent No. 2, it is apparent that these proceedings u/s 145 (1) Cr. P. C. have been Initiated by respondent No. 4. ( 5 ) BEFORE proceeding further with the petition, it would be better to enumerate the basic essentials of Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. The Section contemplates (a) a dispute (b) relating to possession at land (c) likely to cause breach of peace and on fulfillment of these conditions the Magistrate gets jurisdiction to intervene whenever he is satisfied that these essential grounds or reasons for intervention exist. This Jurisdiction is though narrow and limited is well defined and strictly confined to prevention of apprehended breach of peace. The first step in such proceedings, required to be taken, of course on fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions is to pass an order u/s 145 (I) Cr. P. C. which in this case was passed on 2-7-85 by Shri Z. A. Rizave 5dm. Indore. Prior to the passing of this order a letter No. 149/s. D. M. /85 dt. 28. 6. P. C. which in this case was passed on 2-7-85 by Shri Z. A. Rizave 5dm. Indore. Prior to the passing of this order a letter No. 149/s. D. M. /85 dt. 28. 6. 85 was addressed to the Station Officer, P. S. Juni Indore. It leads as follows : -. . (Verunaculer Matter Ommited ). . It will be seen that this letter itself is in the nature of an order, directing the Police to file a report which is made to appear to have been filed on 1-7-85 although the marginal endorsement in the order sheet indicates that the aforesaid direction was issued on 2-7-85 and the date 2 is corrected as 1. ( 6 ) ON 1-7-85 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has recorded :- PRAKRAN POLITIC AL LOGOO KA JAN PADTA HAL ATTAH IS SAMBANDH ME POLICE STATION JUNI INDORE SE TATKAL REPORT MANGWAI JAVE. This is how the Police report is received. The order sheet does not bear any date, but the marginal endorsement shows 1/7/1985 with corrections in the date. Now by no stretch of law can it be said to be a justifiable reason for calling the report from the Police for initiating action under section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. The basic requirements stated above have been over looked. ( 7 ) THE scope of exercise of powers under section 145 (I) Cr. P. C. is well defined and it is also well established that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate who exercises powers under section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. has to act in a Quasi Judicial manner. Taking it to be an administrative action still it has to be informed with reason and fairness not influenced by such political considerations in invoking the provisions of law. It is to be noted with regret that the initiation of proceedings u/s 145 (1) Cr. P. C. is itself bad in law being in utter disregard of the essential requirements. ( 8 ) FOR the first time the parties appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 3-7-85 but it is significant to note that even before the parties appeared the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in pursuance to his direction dt. P. C. is itself bad in law being in utter disregard of the essential requirements. ( 8 ) FOR the first time the parties appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 3-7-85 but it is significant to note that even before the parties appeared the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in pursuance to his direction dt. 1-7-85 called for a report from the Police, as the matter appeared to have political over tones, the report appears to have been submitted on 1-7-85 and on the same day it is recorded in the order sheet that a preliminary order was passed and a case was directed to be registered. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the earlier orders were passed even in absence of a registered case before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. By order dt. 1-7-85, the case was fixed for 3-7-85. It is significant to note that a cyclostyled preliminary order under section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. has been passed on 2nd July 1985 whereas there is no such order sheet of 2nd of July 1985 to be found in the proceedings. The case which was fixed for 3rd July 1985 was taken up on 3rd and in between the two order sheets there is a recital to the effect that report from police received and preliminary order passed but regretably it does not bear any date. ( 9 ) PASSING of a preliminary order is the most important step in proceedings u/s 145 (1) Cr. P. C. The order is passed on 2-7- 85 bears the date 2-7-85 but there is no order sheet dated 2-7-85. It is inconceivable that a Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting in quasi Judicial manner, passing order u/s 145 (1) Cr. P. C. on 2-7-85 still not drawing an order sheet on that and of that date. The making of an order u/s 145 (1) Cr. P. C. pre-supposes subjective satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate about dispute relating to land, imminent present fear of breach of place, applying these facts to the cyclostyled proforma orders on record can it be safe to infer subjective satisfaction on the part of the Executive Magistrate concerned, such cyclostyled proformas merely provide a skeleton without a soave. It is not that an order has been passed in the case and thereafter stenciled for the purposes of getting the parties served. There is no original order at all either written or typed, on record. It is not that an order has been passed in the case and thereafter stenciled for the purposes of getting the parties served. There is no original order at all either written or typed, on record. All that is to be found is a bunch of cyclostyled orders. It is needless to say that proceedings u/s 145 (1) Cr. P. C. have an important role at times decisive bearing on a citizens rights to property and in possession. ( 10 ) BEFORE taking action the Magistrate should take in the context all the particular facts before him and facts defer from case to case. There is a catena of case law holding that Section 145 is frequently misapplied and the Magistrate should be careful to see that the criminal Courts are not used by the parties for the settlement of civil disputes or for maneuvering for position for the purposes of subsequent civil litigation or as an easy way of getting possession of the land in dispute without going to the Civil Court or for driving the other side to the Civil Court to prove his title. The practice of taking to the Criminal Courts for a preliminary scurnish disputed questions of rights and the is much to be deprecated. It is also observed that as a successful criminal proceeding offers certain advantages persons of means are not infrequently tempted to resort to this section as a trial of a strength before civil litigation. With all these precedents, does the order in question, even remotely indicate much less assures the subjective satisfaction, so very essential for passing an order under section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. The impugned order, in the space provided for Vad-Grast and Achal Sampati, merely refers to plot without even specifying its location, number or area. For that matter, even the order sheets, commencing from 28- 6-85 to 8-7-85 (in all 5) are also silent on this crucial point, there is yet another aspect which militate against the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. For that matter, even the order sheets, commencing from 28- 6-85 to 8-7-85 (in all 5) are also silent on this crucial point, there is yet another aspect which militate against the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. It is to be seen from the record that on 1-7-85 the petitioner had not merely placed all the relevant material facts, but also 7 documents, some of them being Photostat copies of the orders passed by S. D. M. on 6-6-83, and the A. D. J. s order on 25-4- 85 in Civil Suit No. 21-A/84 having a material bearing, and the permissions obtained for construction from the Corporation as well as from the Joint Director Town and Country planning, there is not even a mention of these documents, leave aside consideration in the preliminary order passed by the Magistrate on 2-7-85. It is not a case of mere non-consideration of the material but also a case of total lack of application of mind much less a quasi judicial consideration of facts and material before passing the impugned order. It is to be noted that the thin line of demarcation between judicial and quasi judicial function is also, by now almost obliterated. ( 11 ) WHERE serious points involving rights relating to possession of property are raised, the question that arises for consideration is whether, a mechanical re-production in cyclostyled order can be a substitute of that satisfaction on the part of the Magistrate which section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. enjoins him to reach before passing such an order. What seriousness leave aside sanctity can be attached to such cyclostyled proforma orders? This Court is constrained to observe that in the instant case the Executive Magistrate has by mere mechanical re-production of the language and requirement of section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. has passed the order without any application of mind and such an order can have no legal sanctity. The material placed by the petitioner has not been considered, there is no indication about the land in question merely mentioning plots does not suggest anything. The initiation of proceedings in this case as has been pointed out above, is not a consideration of any material but was the result of the political influence, as borne out from order sheet dated 1-7-85. The initiation of proceedings in this case as has been pointed out above, is not a consideration of any material but was the result of the political influence, as borne out from order sheet dated 1-7-85. ( 12 ) BEFORE passing the order dated 28-6-85 there was no material with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to issue the order No. 149 dt. 28-6-85 which has already been reproduced above. In fact it was by this order, that a report was sought from the Police and subsequently registered on 1-7-85, as shown in the order-sheet which has also been discussed above and even prior to the registration of a case, prohibitory orders in the nature of injunctions stopping construction were issued, for which there was absolutely no basis. The orders do not ex-facie suggest that the 5dm. was acting on personal information. On the other hand what is amply established from record is that he wanted to act on political grounds for which a report from Police was sought and on obtaining the report the case was registered. Thus there is no legal foundation for passing the order. It would not be out of place to recall the words of Lord Salborn. A century ago I v. P. S. District Board of Works said there would be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there were anything of that sort done contrary to the essence of justice. The essence of justice in the instance case requires fairness in consideration of all the necessary facts in order to reach the subjective satisfaction which cannot be done by mechanical re-production of the provisions of law and in a cyclostyled proforma leaving the blanks to be filled in as and when required. Such orders offend against the rudimentary principles of natural justice. Such cyclostyled proforma order offended against the elementary principles of natural justice and it has long been settled law that a decision which offends against principles of natural justice, is outside the jurisdiction of the decision making Authority. Violation of natural justice makes the decision void. When the latter requires consideration of facts for reaching subjective satisfaction, such satisfaction cannot be subjected to a rigid mechanical repetition of the legal phraseology without any application of mind and consideration of facts. Such a practice, needs to be deprecated and discouraged. Violation of natural justice makes the decision void. When the latter requires consideration of facts for reaching subjective satisfaction, such satisfaction cannot be subjected to a rigid mechanical repetition of the legal phraseology without any application of mind and consideration of facts. Such a practice, needs to be deprecated and discouraged. The notice Annexure-III and the order dated 2-7-85 passed under section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. also stands quashed. ( 13 ) BEFORE parting with the case, this Court hopes that such mechanical prepared proforma shall be avoided in passing orders involving satisfaction of the Authorities. Petition allowed. .