K. C. JAGADEB ROY, J. ( 1 ) THE present petitioner is one of the 2nd party members in a proceeding under section 145, Cr. P. C. in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bargarh numbered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 97 of 1989. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of the learned S. D. M. , Bargarh dated 29. 2. 1992 passed in the said criminal misc. case wherein the learned Magistrate concluded that the dispute being of civil nature, the parties are advised to resort to civil proceeding if so like while directing the attachment dated 6. 6. 1989 to continue till otherwise ordered by any competent authority and with such direction has disposed of the proceeding. ( 2 ) SECTION 145 and section 146, Cr. P. C. in the 1973 Code read as follows:"s. 145 (1): Whenever an executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that dispute likely to cause a branch of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of subject of dispute. xx xx xx (5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed, and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceeding thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final. (6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was or should under the proviso to subsection (4) be treated as being in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted there from in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction and when be proceeds under the first proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossess. ""s. 146: (1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in section 145, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof: Provided that such Magistrate may with draw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the object of dispute. (2) when the Magistrate attaches the subject of dispute he may, if no receiver in relation to such subject of dispute, has been appointed by any civil court, make such arrangements as he considers proper for looking after the property or if he thinks fit, appoint a receiver thereof, who shall have, subject to the control of the Magistrate all the powers of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) Provided that in the event of receiver being subsequently appointed in relation to the subject of dispute by any Civil Court, the Magistrate - (a) shall order the receiver appoint by him to hand over the possession of the subject of dispute to the receiver appointed by the Civil Court and shall thereafter discharge the receiver appointed by him; (b) may make such other incidental or consequential orders as may be just. " ( 3 ) IT is by making a preliminary order that the Magistrate assumes jurisdiction to proceed under sections 145 and 146, Cr. P. C. After passing of the preliminary order an attachment may be affected under section 146 of the 1973 Code if the Magistrate considers the case to be one of emergency while the attachment may be made subsequently under two other limbs of the section at the final stage of the proceeding initiated by the preliminary order. P. C. After passing of the preliminary order an attachment may be affected under section 146 of the 1973 Code if the Magistrate considers the case to be one of emergency while the attachment may be made subsequently under two other limbs of the section at the final stage of the proceeding initiated by the preliminary order. Under sub-section (4) of section 145, a duty is cast on the Magistrate to peruse the written statements of the parties to receive the evidence adduced by them, to take further evidence if necessary and, if possible, to decide which of the parties was in possession on the date of the preliminary order. If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was in possession, he is to make a final order in the manner provided under sub-section (6) of the said section. But if the Magistrate is unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession or where he is of the view that neither of them was in possession, he may pass an order of attachment of the subject matter of the dispute under section 146 of the Code until determination of the rights of the parties by a competent court. The scheme of sections 145 and 146 of the Cr. P. C. is that the Magistrate, on being satisfied about the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace, issued a preliminary order stating the grounds of his satisfaction and calling upon the parties to appear before him and submit their written statements. After perusing the statements and considering the evidence that is laid, the Magistrate decides which of the parties was in possession on the date of passing of the preliminary order. When there is a decision by him that one of the parties was in possession, he declares the possession of that party. But in other 2 situations as indicated above, he attaches the property. A proceeding thus begun with a preliminary order must be followed by an enquiry and end with the Magistrate deciding in one of the three ways nearly: (a) if any body is found in possession. (b) if no body is found in possession, and/or (c) he is unable to decide who was in possession. In later two cases as already stated, he only attaches the property. (b) if no body is found in possession, and/or (c) he is unable to decide who was in possession. In later two cases as already stated, he only attaches the property. Accordingly, once a proceeding is initiated, by passing a preliminary order, the Magistrate has to conclude the proceeding in one of the 3 ways mentioned above. There is no question of stopping the proceeding in the middle and leaving the parties to go to the civil court. This is subject to only one exception namely the proceeding is, however to be stopped if one or either of the parties, satisfied the Magistrate that there has never been or there is no dispute to cause breach of the peace. It is because, when there is no dispute likely to cause breach of peace, foundation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, disappears. The Magistrate then cancel the preliminary order, as provided under sub-section (5) of section 145 of the Code. ( 4 ) IN a case of emergency the Magistrate has jurisdiction to attach the property, at any time after making the preliminary order or his is one of the situations provided under section 146 (1) in which an attachment may be effected. There is no express stipulation in section 146 that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate ends with the attachment and the Magistrate is not to proceed further with the 145 proceeding after the attachment nor this can be read as implied. An emergency is the basis of attachment under the first limb of section. 146 (1) and when there is an emergency, no one can say that there is no dispute likely to cause breach of the peace. Section 145, Cr. P. C. has undergone amendment in 1955 as well as in 1973. After 1955 amendment the change that was brought in, was to the effect that when the Magistrate was unable to decide himself as to which of the parties was in possession or when decides that none of the parties is in possession, instead of leaving the parties to go to the civil court he may himself refer the matter to the civil court and ultimately receiving opinion of the civil court, should conclude the proceeding is conformity with the decision of the civil court. Since this provision did not bring out the desired effect, it was thought to reflect in sections 145 and 146 of 1973 Code substantially the same, which occurred under the statute prior to 1955 amendment. The only change is that the second proviso to section 145 (4) (as it stood before the 1955 amendment) has now been transposed to section 146 but without the words pending his decision under this section' and with the words "at any time after making the order under section 145 (1)". Section 146 mentions of the situation where attachments are made. In the result, the attachment made at any time after making an order under section 145 (1) can only continue till termination of the proceeding. In the case of (Mathuralal v. Bhanwarlal and another) reported in (1980)1 S. C. R. 620, the apex court held that it is wrong to say that the Magistrates jurisdiction ends as soon as an attachment is made on the ground of emergency. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the finding of the trial court that the case being of civil nature, the parties are advised to go to the civil court if they so like and disposing of the proceeding with this observation with a direction to continue the attachment, obviously cannot be sustained. The proceeding could not be ordered to be disposed of as is stated by the Magistrate in his order dated 292. 1992. The order of attachment made by the learned Magistrate, according to section 146 (1) of the Code is to continue until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. The proviso to section 146 (1) of the Code, however, authorises the Magistrate to withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer likelihood of any breach of peace with regard to the subject matter of the dispute. It is because of this by merely attaching the property, the proceeding does not come to an end. It is because of this by merely attaching the property, the proceeding does not come to an end. After the attachment is made and before the competent court has determined the rights of the parties, if on the assertions made before the Magistrate, the, Court is satisfied that there is no longer likelihood of breach of peace, as already stated, the Magistrate may withdraw the attachment which would not be possible if the proceeding is disposed of on the date of attachment and requires that the proceeding should be kept alive so that the order under the proviso if necessary, can be passed at any time before the competent court comes to determine the rights of the parties. Therefore, the proceeding is to be kept alive when the attachment is allowed to continue until a competent court determines the right of the parties therto with regard to the person entitled to the procession. ( 6 ) IN the result, that part of the order of the Magistrate dated 29. 2. 1992 disposing of the proceeding is set aside and criminal revision is allowed accordingly, without any order as to cost. Revision allowed.