Order.- This revision petition by No. 1 of the A-party is for quashing the preliminary order passed by the Executive First Class Magistrate of Adoor in M.C. No. 7 of 1964 and to direct the Magistrate to initiate proceedings under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code against the B-party. On a report from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pathanamthitta the Executive First Class Magistrate was satisfied that dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed between the A and B parties concerning the possession of the Arya Bharathi Vidya Mandiram High School buildings, equipments and premises and he made a preliminary order on 1st June, 1964 under section 145(1) calling upon the parties to appear before him and put in written statements of their respective claims to possession and to produce documents and affidavits in support of their case. Being a case of emergency learned Magistrate also attached the property and appointed a Receiver for the conduct of the school. No. 1 of the A-party claiming to be in possession of the school buildings and equipment and being recognised by the Government as the Correspondent of the school presented a petition to the Court stating that proceedings under section 145 was uncalled for and may be dropped and attachment be vacated. According to him the school and the entire property concerned in the case belonged to No. 2 of the A-party and for valuable consideration she had transferred her entire rights to his Grace the Archbishop of Trivandrum as per a registered sale deed No. 849 dated 2nd March, 1964. It is stated that till the assignment she was in actual possession and management of the school and thereafter a joint application was made and the Government has approved the change of management and recognised No. 1 of the A-party as the manager of the school and ever since the transfer No. 1 of the A-party has been in possession and management. According to him none of respondents (B-party) are in possession and even if they have any imaginary claims they have to establish their rights in a civil Court and cannot be allowed to take the law into their own hands and create trouble and if they are bent on creating mischief the proper thing for the Court to have done is to initiate proceedings against them under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The case of the B-party was that the sale-deed Exhibit P-1 is ab initio void as prior sanction under section 6 of the Kerala Education Act has tot been obtained, that No. 2 of the A-party had no ownership, that she was in possession only as a trustee on behalf of the Hindu public and as she had no exclusive possession she could not have transferred any title or possession to the Archbishop. Learned Magistrate on the rival contentions set up by the parties and the reportof the police was convinced that there was a dispute and a scramble for possession of the properties and that there was every likelihood of a breach of the peace and he took the view that the only possible way of preserving the peace was to attach the properties and initiate proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. He probably felt that he could not at that stage find A-party to be in possession so as to initiate proceedings against the B-party under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. All the documents prima facie show that the properties were owned by No. 2 of the A-party and that she was in possession and management and that she had transferred her rights to the Archbishop, but before initiating proceedings under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate would have to ascertain which of the parties is in actual possession of the properties and he would have thought that this could be done more conveniently by proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred me to the decision in Kameshwar Singh v. Ramdahin Tewari1 where it was held that if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the claim of one of the parties to the proceedings is a mere pretence and there is no bona fide dispute, proceedings under section 107 could be started against that party. The word used in the section is only ‘dispute’ and in my opinion the word could have been used only in its ordinary sense of disagreement, struggle, scramble or quarrel for possession of land which is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The word used in the section is only ‘dispute’ and in my opinion the word could have been used only in its ordinary sense of disagreement, struggle, scramble or quarrel for possession of land which is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Whether the word ‘dispute’ refers only to bona fide disputes has been considered by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Agni Kumar Das v. Mantazaddin2, where it was held that the word ‘dispute’ means actual disagreement existing between the parties at the time of the proceedings under section 145. I am tempted to agree with the view taken in this case. If the Magistrate is required to decide whether a dispute is bona fide or not it would be to require him to go into the question of merits or the claims of a party to a right to possess the subject of dispute, which he is forbidden to do by sub-section (4). The argument, therefore, that the word ‘dispute’ should be read as bona fide dispute cannot in my judgment be accepted. In exercising the discretion as to whether one section or the other is the more appropriate section the Magistrate will regard the supreme necessity of maintaining the public peace. In certain cases he may, on the materials available before him, decide that proceedings under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, has to be taken. However, the discretion as to what is the more appropriate action to be taken is to be exercised on the particular facts of each case considered as a whole and by an officer with knowledge of the local condition. Unless it could be stated that the Magistrate has acted clearly without jurisdiction it will not be proper for this Court sitting in revision to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Executive Magistrate. It may be that on the documents or affidavits which they may produce the A-party would beable to prove that they are in possession and management and that the claim set up by the other side is a mere pretence. But that is a matter which would have to be decided by. the learned Magistrate at the enquiry. I cannot, therefore, agree that this is a case which calls for interference at this stage. Petition is dismissed. But that is a matter which would have to be decided by. the learned Magistrate at the enquiry. I cannot, therefore, agree that this is a case which calls for interference at this stage. Petition is dismissed. The learned Magistrate will now post the case for hearing to a near date after notice to the parties and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. Send back the papers promptly. Stay granted in Crl.M.P. No. 455 of 1964 is vacated. M.C.M. ----- Petition dismissed.