JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - This petition u/s 482, Cr PC is filed invoking inherent power of the Court to quash the order of the learned Executive Magistrate passed in Misc. Case No. 41 of 1990 converting the proceeding u/s 144. Cr PC to one u/s 145 and subsequent order declaring the possession of the opposite party (first party in the Court below) in respect of the land in question. 2. The disputed land appertains to plot No. 531 under Khata No. 61 of mouza Dangulu, P. S. Sadar, District Phulbani. On an application being filed by the opp. party that there was likelihood of commission of breach of peace concerning the disputed land, learned Subdivisional Magistrate, Kondhamal, Phulbani, initiated a proceeding u/s 144, Cr PC on 25-7-1990 and restrained both the parties to enter upon the said land. In response to the notice the petitioners entered appearance and filed their show-cause. Since both parties independently advanced claim of possession, which required determination in a properly constituted proceeding, the learned SDM vide his order dated 14-11-1990 converted the proceeding to one u/s 145, Cr PC. Thereupon he proceeded with the hearing and recorded evidence adduced by the parties and ultimately passed orders declaring possession in favour of the opp. party. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani, in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 1992. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the lower Court's order and dismissed the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that conversion of the proceeding was illegal and without jurisdiction, because the initial order, life span of which, was for two months, had expired on 25-9-1990 and therefore, the learned Magistrate became functus officio to pass any order much leas the impugned order converting the proceeding to one u/s 145, Cr PC. He further contended that for the self-same disputed land a civil suit filed by the opp. party is pending for adjudication and in view of the settled position of law. a parallel proceeding u/s 145, Cr PC should not have been allowed to continue. 4. Learned counsel for opp. He further contended that for the self-same disputed land a civil suit filed by the opp. party is pending for adjudication and in view of the settled position of law. a parallel proceeding u/s 145, Cr PC should not have been allowed to continue. 4. Learned counsel for opp. party, on the other hand, argued that this petition u/s 432, Cr PC which is in the nature of a second revision is not legally maintainable and further, finding of possession having been determined by the Magistrate and confirmed by the revisional Court, should not be interfered with in exercise of inherent power. 5. Section 144, Cr PC under Chapter X-C is intended for temporary order in cases of grave emergency and is directed against those who attempt to prevent the exercise of legal rights by others or imperil the public safety and health. It is the urgency of the situation that warrants for taking action under the section and even an ex parte order can be passed when the consequences are sufficiently grave. It is not an ordinary power from administration but a power used in a judicial manner and which can stand further judicial scrutiny in the need for the exercise of the power in its efficacy and in the extent of its application. So. while passing ex parte order the Magistrate should be satisfied either from the police report or other information that the matter is urgent and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is necessary to avert the apprehended danger. The order passed u/s 144, Cr. PC is purely temporary in nature and as provided in Sub-section (4), it remains in force only for a period of two months from the date of passing thereof. So, the life span of the order being two months, it automatically comes to an end on the expiry of the said period and the Magistrate becomes functus offcio to pass any further order. However, before expiry of the period if he is satisfied from the very same police report or the information on the basis of which action has been taken u/s 144 that there is scramble for possession between the parties concerning the land in question and breach of peace is likely to continue, he may convert the proceeding to one u/s 145, Cr PC. To put it otherwise, on expiry of two months, the proceeding stands terminated; as a result, the Magistrate ceases to have power to pass any order even the order of conversion of the proceeding. This observation of mine gains support from the decision of this Court in Hadu Khan and Others Vs. Mahadev Das and Others, where it has been observed: "......Where during pendency of Section 144, Cr PC order, the Magistrate becomes satisfied that dispute likely to cause breach of peace concerning any land which originated the temporary order, is likely to continue beyond its life of two months, he may pass a preliminary order by way of altering the order u/s 144, Cr PC. While so altering or converting all other conditions of Section 145. Cr PC must be satisfied and the date of conversion shall be the date of preliminary order under Sub-section (1) thereof. Such conversion cannot in law, have the effect of changing the character of Section 144, Cr PC proceeding from its very start so as to constitute the date of passing of Section 144. Cr PC order as the date of preliminary order and such conversion if it is not an independent preliminary order, must take place on or before the very last day when the prohibitory order u/s 144, Cr PC is due to expire...." 6. In the present case the order of conversion of the proceeding is not an independent preliminary order. This had been passed after expiry of two months of the passing of the prohibitory order u/s 144, Cr PC and therefore, the same being illegal and without jurisdiction, any subsequent action taken on the basis of the said order cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter, the ultimate finding of possession recorded by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the revisional Court being without jurisdiction cannot be upheld. 7. It would appear from the revisional Court's order that in course of argument both parties admitted that a civil suit bearing T. S. No. 18 of 1991 was subjudice between the parties. But the same did not weigh with the learned Sessions Judge since it was for the first time agitated before him and not before the Magistrate. 7. It would appear from the revisional Court's order that in course of argument both parties admitted that a civil suit bearing T. S. No. 18 of 1991 was subjudice between the parties. But the same did not weigh with the learned Sessions Judge since it was for the first time agitated before him and not before the Magistrate. I do not agree with his aforesaid conclusion, because of the reason that it being a question of law, there was no bar to take the same into consideration and arrive at a finding when there was no dispute about the factual position. Law is very clear that when Civil Court is in seisin of the matter, it would be sheer waste of public time and energy to proceed with the parallel proceeding u/s 145, Cr PC. 8. It is no doubt true that second revision u/s 397(3), Cr PC is not maintainable as urged by the learned counsel for opp. parties, but in order to prevent abuse of process of Court, it would be appropriate to resort to Section 482, Cr PC and set aside the orders passed by both the Courts below. 9. In the result, Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate as well as of the revisional Court are set aside.