Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.4.99 by which the learned Subdivisional Magistrate, Dumraon has initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) being Case no. 60A of 1999 and the revisional order dated 16.6.99 passed in Cr. Rev. no. 46 of 1999 by which the revision against initiation of the proceeding has been dismissed. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present case are that there was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code between the petitioner as first party and opposite party no.4, Jagannath Prasad and others as second party. The said proceeding was numbered as Case no.403 of 1995. The said proceeding was decided in favour of first party-petitioner on 9.6.97 and the possession of the petitioner was declared over the land in question and second party-private opposite party no.4 and other members of the second party were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the first party-petitioner. A copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure-1 to this application. Opposite party no.4, Jagannath Prasad and his son tiled a Criminal Revision no. 450 of 1997 before this court and the same was also dismissed on 30.11.1998. A copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure-2 to this application. 4. Thereafter the petitioner has filed a title suit for cancellation of certain forged and fabricated documents. 5. Opposite party no. 4 filed a petition before the learned Magistrate apprehending breach of peace at the instance of the petitioner with regard to the land in dispute which was the subject matter of the earlier proceeding and the learned Magistrate initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code and later on converted in into 145 of the Code by order dated 24.4.99 which has been upheld in revision by the revisional court. 6. In view of the admitted fact that there was an earlier 145 proceeding and that has been recently decided in favour of the petitioner, the initiation of the another proceeding under Section 145 is a gross abuse of the process of the court. The learned Magistrate in case of breach of peace should have provided protection to the petitioner in whose favour a valid order unger Section 145 of the Code has been passed. The learned Magistrate in case of breach of peace should have provided protection to the petitioner in whose favour a valid order unger Section 145 of the Code has been passed. Once a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code is decided in favour of a party and unless that order is nullified by an order of the competent Civil Court it is the bounden duty of the Magistrate to maintain the possession of the person in whose favour declaration under section 145 of the Code has been made. It is unfortunate that in this case the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error of law in initiating a fresh proceeding under Section 145 of the Code with regard to the property covered by the earlier 145 proceeding. No Magistrate having an elementary knowledge of law will take recourse of such proceeding. The Initiation ot the proceeding by the Magistrate is wholly impermissible in law and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Magistrate initiating the proceeding as well as the revisional order upholding the aforesaid order is set aside. In case, opposite party no.4 or his family members or any person bound by the earlier order passed in 145 proceeding create any disturbance, the learned Magistrate will take appropriate action against them and will protect the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land. The final order passed under Section 145 proceeding will be subject to the result of the title suit which is pending between the parties. 7. In the result, this application is allowed.