JUDGMENT L. P. N. Shahdeo, J.-This is an application for quashing the order dated 7.1.1989 passed by Sri G.S. Munda, Executive Magistrate, Giridih, who had attached the land under section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a proceeding started under section 145 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure. 2. This attachment of the land under section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is subject of challenge in this application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Mr. Ramautar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Magistrate has not stated that any emergency existed for passing the order of attachment and, therefore, that order of attachment is illegal and wrong. 4. On the other hand Mr. B. Y. Kishore, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the order passed by the learned magistrate is according to the law on the totality of the facts and circumstances based on the police report which he has taken into consideration to come to a conclusion whether a case of emergency had been made out or not. 5. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate on 7.1.1989 indicates that he had received the report from the local police recommending the attachment of the land in that proceeding. The first party had filed a petition on 2.1.1989 for attachment of the land. A report was called for from the police and police submitted its report on 4.1.1989 which was perused by the learned Magistrate and thereafter he passed the order to the effect :- "I am satisfied that there is imminent danger of the breach of peace between the parties in respect of the possession over the disputed land. Hence the land under dispute is attached u/s 146 (1) so that any clash or bloodshed can be avoided. The local police is appointed receiver to look after the disputed land." 6. From the scrutiny of this order, it appears that the learned Magistrate passed the order of attachment on the basis of the report of the police and on hearing first party, he was satisfied that there was imminent danger which was of such magnitude and grave nature that if quick action was not taken, it was likely to cause clash between the parties leading to bloodshed. The background of such type of situation is said to be that a tree was cut away by one of the parties from the land in question. This indicates that a potential overt act of grave nature had arisen likely to cause imminent breach of peace which was necessary to be prevented by attachment of the land. This was not a case of mere apprehension of breach of peace but a case depending upon subsequent development on the basis of police report and after hearing the first party that order was passed to avoid bloodshed, based on sudden development of uprooting of tree from the disputed land. 7. In the circumstances and the material placed before the learned magistrate, he was bound to act under section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and having done so his order does not appear to be in any way illegal. 8. Apart from that if that order is taken into consideration as a whole which, he has passed later on while appointing a Receiver, he has clarified it that he was satisfied that there - was apprehension of breach of peace. Peace in this emergency like situation could be preserved, if the subject of the dispute in the proceeding is attached immediately and accordingly, he passed the order of attachment and appointed the Receiver and in doing so, he has not committed any illegality. The grave situation was such that swift action was necessary to maintain peace and in that situation he was bound to act under the authority of law. His action taken under section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, within the ambit of law which requires no interference by this Court. 9. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a ruling reported in Criminal Law Journal, 1978, Vol. 84, Page 671. (Amrit Singh and others v. Gyandeo Sharma and another), in which it was held:- "That mere statement of magistrate that he thinks that there may be breach of peace on the disputed land any time cannot be taken, in his opinion, it is a case of emergency. Even if the magistrate says that the case is of emergency that, by itself, may not be sufficient for attachment of the subject of dispute. Even if the magistrate says that the case is of emergency that, by itself, may not be sufficient for attachment of the subject of dispute. In the order passed by the magistrate he must explain the circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency so that the superior court may Judge whether the magistrate has really applied his mind to the facts or not and whether his satisfaction about the emergency is a judicial and objective one. III absence of this, the order of attachment based on the ground of emergency cannot be sustained." 10. So far as the principle of law is concerned that is not in dispute. Only question is that what should be a case of emergency for attachment of the land. I have already indicated the situation in which the order was passed consequent upon finding a case of emergency. 11. The learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon a Division Bench ruling reported in Criminal Law Journal 1982 Page-17 (Mahendra Tiwary v. Smt. Lal Pari Devi and others) in which it was held that :- "Where materials on record satisfy the Court that an emergency regarding the property in dispute did exist thus justifying for passing of an order of attachment, such an order cannot be interfered with even if the order itself is not explicit in disclosing in details facts to show existence of such an emergency." It was also pointed out that :- “It may be that even in such case where the magistrate does not say that the case is one of emergency but if the circumstances are such that the superior Court thinks that case was one of emergency then that Court may not interfere." This shows that writing of the word "emergency" in the impugned order is not a necessary element of emergency and what is necessary element is to state the facts from which an inference can be drawn making out a case of emergency. A case of grave danger arisen or sudden overt act committed after the proceeding had started between the parties likely to endanger peace which cannot be prevented but by taking recourse to power under section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and such a power can be exercised to meet such type of contingency. A case of grave danger arisen or sudden overt act committed after the proceeding had started between the parties likely to endanger peace which cannot be prevented but by taking recourse to power under section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and such a power can be exercised to meet such type of contingency. I have already expressed that the order of attachment passed by the magistrate is lawful and was made to preserve peace in a subsequent situation created by a party. 12. In the result, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. It is directed that the trial may be expedited and concluded preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order, in view of the fact that 10 acres of land is involved n this proceeding. Both the parties are directed to co-operate for the speedy disposal of the case.