Judgment 1. This is an application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 15.2.1992 passed by Sri C.S. Lal, Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Revision No. 4/92, whereby and where under he set aside the order dated 28.12.1991 passed by the S.D.M. Manjhaul in Case No. 202 (M) of 1991 converting the proceeding u/s. 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to that u/s. 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It appears that dispute between the parties is over a Nala which passes through plot Nos. 1515 and 1516. It is alleged that refused water of the house of the petitioner is discharged through that Nala towards north but the same was blocked by the Opposite party No. 2. The petitioner reported the matter to the Anchal Adhikari who got the matter enquired into by Halka Karamachari and also made an enquiry by himself and found that Nala was existing there since long and refused water of the house of the petitioner was discharged through that Nala. He directed the Cooperative Officer to get the obstruction removed and Nala re-constructed. On the report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari, Cheria Bariarpur a proceeding u/s. 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up by the S.D.M. Manjhaul calling upon the parties to appear and show cause. In pursuance of the notice parties appeared and filed their show cause. The S.D.M. after perusing the show cause and hearing the counsel of both sides, converted the proceeding u/s. 133 of the code of Criminal Procedure into a proceeding u/s. 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As against that the opposite party No. 2 preferred Cr. Revision before the Sessions Judge, Begusarai who set aside the order of the S.D.M. by the impugned order stating that the relief sought for in the title suit was more comprehensive and that would cover the remedy available in the proceeding u/s. 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As against that the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashing the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Sessions Judge has misconceived and misinterpreted the facts of the case. The refused water in the Angan of the petitioner has created insanitation and that has posed a health hazard to the family members of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Sessions Judge has misconceived and misinterpreted the facts of the case. The refused water in the Angan of the petitioner has created insanitation and that has posed a health hazard to the family members of the petitioner. There is eminent apprehension of breach of peace between the parties with regard to use of Nala. The Title suit is in its infancy stage and is not likely to be decided very soon. He also placed reliance in a full bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Wahab Khan V/s. Mohd. Hamid Ullah, A.I.R. 1951 AIlahabad-238, wherein it has been held: "A power to effectuate certain object which the legislature has in view must be construed as implying the existence of all such ancillary powers as arc necessary for carrying out the intention of the Legislature and effectuating the object in view. No doubt, u/s. 147 the jurisdiction of a Mag. is confined only to the passing of prohibitory orders which arc generally in a negative form and he has no power to issue every kind of positive orders to secure the exercise of the right of user by one party. But in order to make a prohibitory order effective, the Mag. has power to pass an order for the removal of an obstruction. If without its removal the prohibitory order cannot be effectively enforced. In passing such orders the Mags. must, however, bear in mind that their jurisdiction under S. 147 is confined only to preventing breach of the peace and they are nut expected to hold complicated enquiries as to title and try to adjust the same. Their orders arc intended to be only of a temporary nature till the rights of the parties arc finally determined by competent courts." 4. In the present case, it is evident from the report of the Anchal Adhikari, Charia Bariarpur that the blocked of Nala has resulted in accumulation of refused water in the house of the petitioner. The Nala was old one and the refused water of the house of the petitioner was discharged through that Nala. The dispute between the parties, is therefore, likely to cause apprehension of breach of peace. The Nala was old one and the refused water of the house of the petitioner was discharged through that Nala. The dispute between the parties, is therefore, likely to cause apprehension of breach of peace. The magistrate was, therefore, perfectly well within the powers to initiate a proceeding u/s. 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent apprehension of breach of peace. The pendency of Title suit is no bar to the initiation of proceeding u/s. 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a dispute is likely to cause apprehension of breach of peace regarding any alleged right of use of land and water. 5. The impugned order thus suffers from serious legal infirmity and as such it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is quashed and in the result, this application is allowed.