JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard. 2. In this revision application u/s 401, Cr.P.C. petitioner, who is second party No. 1 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 141 of 1998 of the Court of Executive Magistrate, Titilagarh, challenges correctness and legality of the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1999, as per the impugned judgment dated 10.5.1999. 3. To decide the issue which has been raised by the petitioner, a brief reference to ascertain the salient features involved in the case should be referred to. Opposite party No. 1 Dayamati Kharsel is the first party and the petitioner and opposite party members 2 to 6 are the second party members in Criminal Misc. Case No. 141 of 1998 of the Court of Executive Magistrate, Titilagarh. That is a proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C., in which in 1998 preliminary order under Sub-section (1) of Section 145, Cr.P.C. was passed besides an order directing the local police to keep in custody the standing crops. On 23.11.1998 looking to the written statement filed by the second party and the documents filed by both the parties, learned Executive Magistrate dropped the proceeding on the grounds that the first party made misleading statements by referring to an ex parte decree, which was subsequently set aside and ultimately that suit was dismissed and thereby persuaded learned Executive Magistrate to initiate a proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C. Learned Executive Magistrate also referred to other documents filed by both the parties on their respective claim of title and possession over the disputed case land and he recorded the findings that the second party members are in possession of the case land and they had raised the crop by the date of preliminary order. That order of learned Executive Magistrate, Titilagarh was challenged by the first party in the above noted Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1999. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, vacated that order and directed learned Executive Magistrate to proceed with the enquiry of the proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C. and to dispose of the same in accordance with law with the observation that it was not proper for the learned Executive Magistrate to rescind the preliminary order in the aforesaid manner without determining the question of possession in accordance with the provision under Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohanty argues that when the order of learned Executive Magistrate suffers from no illegality or infirmity, learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have set aside the same in the aforesaid manner, 5. It is not disputed at the Bar that under three circumstances a proceeding initiated u/s 145, Cr. P. C . can be dropped, because the genesis of the proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C. is apprehension of breach of peace arising out of a dispute for possession relating to any land or water or boundaries thereof. Those three circumstances are (1) if the apprehension of breach of peace is recorded to have ceased to exist relating to the factum of possession of the disputed property and the Magistrate is absolutely satisfied about that from the materials placed before him; (2) if the decision relating to factum of possession has been determined by interlocutory or final order or decree by a Civil Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction so as to avoid a conflict and dispute on the issue of possession; and (3) when one of the parties to the proceeding dies and there is no legal heir to be substituted or to contest the claim of the adverse party. 6. Admittedly, in this case learned Executive Magistrate did not find existence of any of the aforesaid circumstances and therefore, the order passed by him to drop the proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C. is absolutely illegal so far as the preliminary order is concerned. 7. As regards the order under Sub-section (8) of Section 145, Cr.P.C. is concerned, it does not appear that any of the parties moved for vacating that order nor the learned Executive Magistrate finds any specific reason to vacate that order. Therefore, for that reason the impugned order of the learned Executive Magistrate was vulnerable as well. For the aforesaid reason, this Court finds the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge legal and sustainable. The Criminal Revision is accordingly not admitted and dismissed. 8. If learned Executive Magistrate is moved or he feels that a circumstance as enumerated in Section 340, Cr.P.C. exists relating to any evidence tendered before him, then notwithstanding pendency or disposal of the proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C. he may take recourse to such provision of law in accordance with the procedure provided therein. Final Result : Dismissed