Judgment : 1. Petitioner has been shown as member of B Party in M.C. No. 24 of 1993 on the file of sub-Divisional Magistrate Mayiladuthurai, wherein the first respondent has been shown as member of A party. 2. Learned Executive Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 147, Cr.P.C. by passing a preliminary order on 14. 1993, wherein he has stated about likelihood of breach of peace due to dispute between parties regarding a pathway/cart-track. On appearance of parties, learned Executive Magistrate chose do examine witnesses and peruse written statements filed by the parties. Ultimately, he passed a final order under Section 147 (3) Cr.P.C on 27. 1993 directing B party to restore the path way, which had been blocked by his within three months prior to the passing of the preliminary order. ‘B’ party was also directed to remove immediately, if any permanent construction had been made by him, on this pathway. 3. It is this final order which stands challenged before me in this petition. Petitioner has invoked inherent powers of this Court to have the impugned order quashed. Even at the outset, it must be stated that seeking recourse to exercise of inherent powers appears to be misconceived, for a revision petition would be maintainable in law, for challenging the impugned order. Anyhow, technicalities need not have to detain a verdict being delivered in this petition. Petitioner’s counsel contended that none of t he witnesses have stated about existence of breach of peace and if that be so impugned order will have to be struck down, for the basic constituent is breach of peace, to initiate proceedings under Section 147 Cr.P.C. 4. I have perused the impugned order carefully. Number of witnesses have spoken about the dispute between parties and the B Party having blocked the pathway to the detriment of A Party. It is likelihood of breach of peace that matters and it is not actual breach of peace. Learned Executive Magistrate has given a specific finding that there is a genuine threat to public peace and tranquility due to this dispute. This finding would suffice to hold that the impugned proceedings were not only properly initiated, but also stood terminated, in accordance with law as far as this act is concerned. 5. Learned Executive Magistrate has given a specific finding that there is a genuine threat to public peace and tranquility due to this dispute. This finding would suffice to hold that the impugned proceedings were not only properly initiated, but also stood terminated, in accordance with law as far as this act is concerned. 5. The next contention urged by petitioner’s counsel was that the learned Executive Magistrate, had not afforded opportunity to A and B party members to have themselves examined an witnesses and offer themselves for cross-examination by the opposing party. Learned Executive Magistrate has stated as follows in his order: “The two disputing parties were not enquired as witnesses, as they have already submitted their written statements.” This observation of the Learned Magistrate is quite vague and does not show if, inspite of a request made by the parties concerned to have themselves examined as witnesses, such a request was turned down, since they have already submitted their written statements. This aspect assumes importance, since the petitioner has taken a specific ground in the memorandum that the Executive Magistrate had erred in not allowing A party and B party to examine themselves as witness. This ground is sufficient to indicate that inspite of their wanting themselves to be examined as witnesses, the Executive Magistrate had not allowed them to get into the witness box. This procedure, to my mind has certainly created a legal laouna. That will have to be set right. 6. Impugned order shall stand set aside, and case records will be remitted back to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai, who shall examine the petitioner and the respondent as witness, if they so desire, and allow them to be cross-examined by the opposite party and then pass a final order on the basis of evidence already available, plus the evidence of the petitioner and the respondent. This matter is remitted only for that specific purpose and both parties have agreed that the evidence already recorded would be the foundation, on which decision will have to be based, coupled with the evidence of the petitioner and the respondent, which will have to be recorded now by the Executive Magistrate, if they so desire. This petition is allowed to that limited extent indicated above. 7. Registry is directed to send back the case records to the Executive Magistrate within one week from today. This petition is allowed to that limited extent indicated above. 7. Registry is directed to send back the case records to the Executive Magistrate within one week from today. Learned Executive Magistrate shall dispose of M.C. No. 24 of 1993 within four weeks from the date of receipt of records and copy of this order.