This is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 1981 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jorhat setting aside the order dated 17.12.80 passed by the Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Magistrate had declared possession of the property in favour of the petitioner but the learned Judge quashed the pro­ceedings. 2. Before dealing with the merits of the case, I would like to state a few words as to the use and abuse of proceedings u/ss. 133, 145 and 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for short "the Code". 3. The provisions of sections 129 to 148 of "the Code" are meant for dealing with situations which call for "'the main­tenance of public order and tranquility" by Executive Magistrates. The provisions of sections 129 to 132 are invoked to deal with '"unlawful assembly"'. Sections 133 to 143 of "the Code" fall under the head "public nuisance". The provisions of section 144 deal with "the urgent cases of apprehended dangers" whereas sections 145 to 147 of ' the Code" deal with disputes relating to immoveable property. In the case in hand the relevant pro­visions which require our attention are Sections 133 and 147 of "the Code". Every third case is a proceeding under these sec­tions and in most cases the parties are kith and kin. They come from the poor bracket. They fight litigation up to the High Court and the vanquished go back to the civil court for starting another innings of legal battle. Apart from the strained rela­tionship and ill feeling generated between the neighbours and/or relatives, huge expenditures are incurred in the proceedings and sufferers are the poor. Suits in Civil Courts under the specific Relief Act have become rare as the parties obtain readymade preliminary order u/ss. 133, 145 and 147 of "the Code". It is difficult to obtain an injunction in a civil action because the party must satisfy the court about tie prima facie case, the balance of conveniei'3 and irreparable injury. So many hardies are to overcome for obtaining an order of injunction. But to initiate actions u/ss. 133, 145 and 147 of "the Code". It is difficult to obtain an injunction in a civil action because the party must satisfy the court about tie prima facie case, the balance of conveniei'3 and irreparable injury. So many hardies are to overcome for obtaining an order of injunction. But to initiate actions u/ss. 134, 145 and 147 of "the Code" to coax and trouble the neighbour or the relatives, drag them to court and let them suffer, the party is just to state that the adversary is dange­rous and daring person and there is apprehension of a breach of the peace. The combat starts which terminates in the High Court, in the process the parties, who are mostly the rural poor suffer agonies, miseries, anxieties, loss of money, time and energy. The time has come when the Executive Magistrates should be careful and circumspect while drawing up proceedings under these sections. They must bear in mind the impact of the pro­ceedings on the poor litigants and the adverse affects on the parties. The ultimate winner in such a proceeding is a nomi­nal winner, in fact, a real loser in money, time, expenses apart from buying strained feeling with neighbour, and relatives. When the door to obtain reliefs under the Specific Relief Act is wide open the Executive Magistrate should direct the parties to ask for the relief in civil court. The proceedings are just stop gap arrangements to avoid a breach of the public peace, tranquility, or to prevent public nuisances and disputes which affect "law and order". If such contingency can be avoided by direc­ting the police to take charge of the situation the Magistrate of that to refer the parties to civil court. However, there may be exceptional and special cases, say, where the poor is oppressed by the and the powerful. It may be that in some cases it might be difficult for a poor party to fight out civil litiga­tion unless he gets protection from the Magistrate. It is nece­ssary to scrutinizes each case carefully and then to initiate a proceeding. However, it must be borne in mind that the very object and the purpose of the provisions are to deal with un­lawful assembly, prevent public nuisance or apprehended dan­ger so that the even tempo of the society is maintained. It is nece­ssary to scrutinizes each case carefully and then to initiate a proceeding. However, it must be borne in mind that the very object and the purpose of the provisions are to deal with un­lawful assembly, prevent public nuisance or apprehended dan­ger so that the even tempo of the society is maintained. It is for the Magistrates to consider as to whether they should meddle with the private disputes between the parties. The do­mestic disputes or private disputes between two parties asserting their respective civil rights should go to civil court, unless the Executive Magistrate considers it to be imperative to take recourse to the provisions of "the Code” to maintain law and order, public tranquility etc. If one brother asserts his civil right in respect of a property and the other disputes the same, there may be strained relationship between them. Should such matter enter into court of the Executive Magistrate for getting a stamp as to who should continue to exercise his right ? If the even tempo of the community is not disturbed or jeopardized should the dispute come to the criminal court ? The assertion of pri­vate right may not disturb the even tempo of the society. There may be private feud, or disputes for which action under the Code may not be called for. To avoid disputes of serious nature like the breach of the peace or tranquility or disputes which go beyond the four corners of private disputes or where there is possibility of head breaking or injury or disturbance of law and order, learned Magistrates should take up the summary actions. The proceedings are just to maintain peace and tranquility and the orders rendered in these sections are merely temporary orders. The orders of the Courts are co­terminous with the judgment or decree of the Civil court. No sooner the civil court declares the right of the parties the temporary orders rendered by the courts u/ss. 133, 145 and 147 of the Code come to an end. Learned Executive Magistrates are public servants. They are fully aware of the conditions of the people and the telling effects of the proceedings on the poor rural litigants. Accordingly, before entertaining such proceedings the Executive Magistrate ought to be cautious, careful and circumspect. These proceedings are entering into courts like flood water and public money and time are sometimes wasted and that too for nothing. They are fully aware of the conditions of the people and the telling effects of the proceedings on the poor rural litigants. Accordingly, before entertaining such proceedings the Executive Magistrate ought to be cautious, careful and circumspect. These proceedings are entering into courts like flood water and public money and time are sometimes wasted and that too for nothing. Ramsumer Puri Mahant vs. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 472 is an illustrative case which depicts that their Lordships desired that the proceeding under the Sections should be taken only in flitting circumstances. It is essentially necessary that multiplicity of litigation should be avoided, as far as possible. So, when the matter can be fully and finally determined by the Civil court and there is time enough for the party to ask for relief in the Civil Court it is desirable that the party should go to the Civil Court and obtain appropriate reliefs. I find that the poor rural popula­tion of the State are suffering under the pressure of the proceedings. Lured by the prospect of gaining a quick decision they fall prey to such proceeding they continue with the litigation for years together. The litigations continue and with they bring sufferance to both the parties. Ultimately the proceedings are terminated in the High Court after several years. The parties become exhausted and exasperated and the vanqui­shed party commences another fight in civil courts. This aspect of the matter requires deep consideration of the Executive Magis­trates before initiating any proceeding under the provisions of sections 133, 145 and 147 of "the Code". 3. 1st me now turn to the facts of the case. Two bro­thers are fighting this litigation for over 6 years. The petitioner is the younger brother who was aggrieved by certain actions of his elder brother Ram Chandra (the opposite party). Instead of amicably settling the matter between them, the younger bro­ther took the dispute to the criminal court and drew his eider brother in the combat. Both the brothers are poor agriculturists. It is a fit case in which brothers should amicably settle up the matter amongst themselves. It is highly desirable that the dispute must come to an end. Let some wise counsel implore the brothers that the ultimate winner in this litigation will be a nominal winner, but a real loser in money and time, apart from anxieties, sufferance and agonies. It is highly desirable that the dispute must come to an end. Let some wise counsel implore the brothers that the ultimate winner in this litigation will be a nominal winner, but a real loser in money and time, apart from anxieties, sufferance and agonies. They ought to settle up the matter for their well being and well being of the members of their families. 4. The petitioner filed an application u/s. 147 of "the Code", but the police submitted a report that proceedings u/s. 133 of "the Code" should be drawn up. Learned Magistrate initiated the proceedings u/s. 133 of "the Code" and issued notices. The opposite party appeared and claims that there was no question of public right involved in the dispute and as such the proceeding was not maintainable u/s. 133 of "the Code". Learned Magistrate then delved into the matter and realized that he had committed error and in fitness of things dropped the proceedings u/s. 133 of "the Code". Indeed when the obstruction did not create any public nuisance or in other words when the public right was not affected, learned Magis­trate had no jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings u/s, 133 of the "the Code". However, the petitioner made an app­lication to convert the proceedings u/s. 147. So, a domestic dispute between two brothers was taken up where there was no inkling of public right being affected. It is therefore to be seen as to whether in all actions where civil rights were affected the criminal courts can act u/s. 137 of "the Code". I a at passed by the learned Magistrate u/s. 147 of "the Code" The findings reached are based on records. Some of the findings are in consonance with the view of this court in Maqbul Hussain vs. Syadur Kahman, Criminal Revision No. 101 of 1986 decided on 20.3.1986 and Krishna Chandra Sarkar vs. Surendra Chandra Sarkar, Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1981 decided on 27.5.86. I find that there is no merit in the application. This apart the party has two available remedies, First, the parties may amicably settle the matter instead of incurring further expenses, or, secondly, the petitioner may institute a suit for getting appropriate relief in the court of competent jurisdiction. 5. For the foregoing reasons. I hold that there is no merit in the application and accordingly it is dismissed.