The learned Executive Magistrate, Tezpur in Misc. Case No. 190/87 passed the following orders in a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. 5. 5. 87. Perused the petition and affidavit of the 1st party. The 2nd party has constructed a house and erected a pucca wall by which obstructions have been created in the pathway from the main road to the house of 1st party, (as described in the Schedule). I am satisfied that apprehension has arisen to the effect that there might be breach of peace between the parties. Therefore, being satisfied I have drawn up a proceeding under section 147 Cr. P. C. Issue notice to the 2nd Party to show cause in writing by appearing in the Court on the date fixed, as to why the said obstructions should not be removed. Fix 25. 5 87". 2. Being aggrieved an abortive revision petition was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tezpur and hence this revision petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. 3. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel of the petitioner is that the initial order did not disclose grounds for breach of peace. 4. The scope and ambit of this section 145 Cr. P. C. came up for discussion before this Court and I may refer to tin decision of this Court (speaking through Hon'ble Lahiri. J. his Lordship then was) in Maqbul Hussain vs. Syadur Rahman, (1986) 2 GLR 167. I am tempted to quote in full the 1st para of the observation of his Lordship which runs as follows: "It is difficult to obtain an order of injunction in a civil suit because the party is bound to satisfy the Court that there is a prima facie case, the balance of convenience tilts in his favour and also to satisfy the Court that if injunction is refused the applicant shall suffer irreparable injury. So many hurdles are to be crossed before obtaining an order of injunction. An order of injunction or prohibitory order takes away certain rights of the party injuncted. It is indeed difficult to obtain an injunction, but just throw a petition and assert that there is apprehension of breach of peace in respect of the possession of an immovable property, claim for drawing up a proceeding asserting right to possess the property, a proceeding is readily drawn up U/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code. It is indeed difficult to obtain an injunction, but just throw a petition and assert that there is apprehension of breach of peace in respect of the possession of an immovable property, claim for drawing up a proceeding asserting right to possess the property, a proceeding is readily drawn up U/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The proceeding is initiated no matter whether it is a private dispute between the parties or it is a dispute which necessitates drawl of the proceeding for the maintenance of public order and tranquility." 5. It was further observed in the above case that section 145 clearly states that to assume jurisdiction the Magistrate must be satisfied that the dispute is likely to cause "a breach of peace" and it is not a breach of mental peace of the parties but apprehended breach of peace in the locality. Ordinarily a person dispossessed of property must sue for recovery of specific immovable property under sections 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act and if there is a threat to dispossess him, he should institute a suit to obtain injunction. The Court further held, these are forum for establishing the rights of the litigants and a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. is, therefore, an extra ordinary provision to grant extra ordinary relief when there is likelihood of breach of peace in the locality. It was laid down that private dispute between two persons which does not disturb law and order or occasion breach of peace in the locality, the forum for getting relief is the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. I am in respectful agreement with the observation and law laid down in the above decision and I do not see any reason to take different view. 6. Coming to the case in hand, from the order dated 5. 5. 87 quoted above, the learned Magistrate drew up the proceeding only because he was satisfied that there might be breach of peace between the parties. This is not sufficient for drawing up a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C. in view of the above ratio laid down by this Court. 7. Section 145 find place in Chapter X, Cr. 5. 87 quoted above, the learned Magistrate drew up the proceeding only because he was satisfied that there might be breach of peace between the parties. This is not sufficient for drawing up a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C. in view of the above ratio laid down by this Court. 7. Section 145 find place in Chapter X, Cr. P. C. under the heading 'Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquility.' As held by this Court order under section 145 can be promulgamated only when there is apprehension of breach of peace or tranquility in any locality concerning any immovable property. Merely because there may be dispute between the two private parties a proceeding under section 145 cannot be drawn up unless the Magistrate is satisfied that this private dispute may disturb the peace or tranquility of that area. 8. In the case in hand as stated above, there is not a whisper in the above order of the learned Magistrate that there was a threat to breach of peace, in otherwords public peace or tranquility was in jeopardy. This aspect of the matter was also not considered by the learned lower revision Court. 9. Mr. Dey has very strenuously argued that in view of the provisions contained in section 397 Cr. P. C. this second revision is not maintainable. This point has been examined by this Court earlier and there cannot be any dispute that this Court can definitely exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr. P. C. if the Court is satisfied that interference is called for to prevent abuse of process of any Court or for ends of justice. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court Rajpati vs. Bachan & another, AIR 1981 SC 18 , Mr. Dey has urged that once the Magistrate is satisfied regarding existence of breach of peace this Court cannot enter into this aspect of the matter. But in the case in hand no satisfaction was recorded regarding existence of breach of peace or public tranquility in the locality and as such the above ratio is not applicable to the case in hand. Mr. But in the case in hand no satisfaction was recorded regarding existence of breach of peace or public tranquility in the locality and as such the above ratio is not applicable to the case in hand. Mr. Dey has also placed reliance in another decision of the Apex Court in State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan and others, (1988) 4 SCC 655 on this point and this is also not applicable to the case in hand in view of the reasons stated above. 10. According to Mr. Dey, as a proceeding has been drawn up the trial may continue so that the Magistrate may ascertain whether there is likelihood of breach of peace in the locality. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Dey as in my opinion, this would amount to abuse of process of the Court as the initial order does not disclose a prima facie case under section 145 Cr. P. C. 11. In view of what has been stated above, I find merit in the present petition. Accordingly the petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 5. 5. 87 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Tezpur in Misc. Case No. 190/87.