( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the respondents 4 to 9 in M. C. No. 18 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Visakhapatnam to quash the proceedings therein so far as they are concerned. ( 2 ) THE Respondents 1 to 13 herein are the complainants in M. C. No. 18 of 2004. They presented a petition before the Sub- divisional Magistrate at Visakhapatnam alleging inter alia that they are absolute owners of the petition schedule lands and their possession has been recognized by Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimhaswami vari devastanam represented by its Executive officer, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam. They have also built a small tiled house and a watchman has been appointed by them to look after the agricultural and horticulture operations. The respondents being backed by some antisocial elements have attempted to encroach upon and tried to level the land by using JCB proclainer, their GPA holder successfully resisted and prevented their illegal activities. They are apprehending eminent danger at the behest of the respondents and their henchmen and are anticipating danger to their lives and property culminating group clashes. Therefore they requested the Sub-Divisional, Magistrate to take cognizance of the matter under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ) and issue ex pane order prohibiting the respondents to enter into the land till disposal of the proceedings. ( 3 ) THE 14th respondent-Sub- divisional Magistrate referred the complaint petition to the Station House Officer, pendurthy, to cause discreet enquiry as to the alleged dispute relating to the landed property. The Station House Officer, pendurthy, submitted the report dated 28. 3. 2004 recommending that it is a fit case to take on file under Section 145 (1) of the code. Thereupon the 14th respondent-Sub- divisional Magistrate took the complaint petition on file as M. C. No. 18 of 2004 and passed a preliminary order dated 3. 4. 2004 directing the parties to file written statement and also interim order restraining the respondents therein, and their agents, supporters, henchmen from entering into the petition schedule land pending enquiry in the matter. Assailing the order passed the sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Respondents 4 to 9 therein have filed this criminal petition to quash the proceedings in M. C. No. 18 of 2004 so far as they are concerned. Assailing the order passed the sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Respondents 4 to 9 therein have filed this criminal petition to quash the proceedings in M. C. No. 18 of 2004 so far as they are concerned. ( 4 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners had put forth the following contentions: (1) The impugned order directs the petitioners herein not to disturb the possession of the Respondents 1 to 13 herein and that in a preliminary order under Section 145 (1) of the Code, possession of one party cannot be declared and that only under Section 145 (4) of the Code, the Sub-Divisional magistrate has to decide which of the party was in possession on the date of the complaint, after perusing the statements put by the parties and after hearing them as may be produced by them and not at the outset self. (2) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot give a direction to the petitioners herein not to disturb the possession of the respondent herein and such direction can be given only under section 145 (6) of the Code after giving a decision under Section 145 (4) of the Code. (3) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not recorded the grounds of satisfaction in the order. ( 5 ) IN support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of madras High Court in S. K. Jannathan v, a. K. Ramamoorthy, 1992 LW (Crl) 350. ( 6 ) PER contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 13 would contend that the object of section 145 of the Code is to maintain possession and prevent breach of peace due to dispute concerning the property and there is no illegality in stating in the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) of the Code itself that one party is in possession and restraining the other party from interfering with the possession of property. He would further contend that the grounds of satisfaction has been set out in the impugned order itself and that subjective satisfaction referred to by him in the last para of the order should be taken in the context of the narration given in the preamble portion and other portion of the order which would clearly indicate that the dispute is with regard to immovable property and the said dispute is likely to cause breach of peace. His further submission is that the possession of the respondents herein over the land in dispute has been upheld in O. S. No. 502 of 1989 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate judge, Visakhapatnam and the said finding has been confirmed by the Appellate Court in A. S. No. 391 of 1997 and in such a situation, the order passed by the 14th respondent-Sub-Divisional Magistrate is fully justified and the same is not required to be quashed by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. ( 7 ) ONE Ramachaudra Sahu filed O. S. No. 52 of 1989 on the file of III Additional senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of his title and for injunction in respect of the land in dispute. During the pendency of the suit, the said Ramachandra sahu died and his legal heirs came on record and continued the suit. After full trial, the said suit ended in dismissal on 31. 3. 1997. The legal heirs of Ramachandra sahu preferred an appeal in A. S. No. 391 of 1997 and the said appeal also ended in dismissal dated 24. 12. 2003 confirming the judgment passed in O. S. No. 502 of 1989. ( 8 ) IT is contended by the learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 13 that though the Trial court and the Appellate Court refused to grant the relief of declaration to the plaintiffs/appellants therein, but their possession over the land in dispute was accepted and therefore the order of the 14th respondent-Sub-Divisional Magistrate granting injunction pending disposal of the enquiry in M. C. is legal and proper and the same is not required to be interfered with in this petition. His next submission is that sufficiency of material to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code is the subject to satisfaction of the Sub- divisional Magistrate and the High Court in an application under Section 482 of cr. P. C cannot go into the question of sufficiency of the material, which has satisfied the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in R. H. Bhatani v. Ma Desai, AIR 1968 SC 1444 . There cannot be any dispute with regard to the preposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in R. H. Bhatani v. Ma Desai, AIR 1968 SC 1444 . There cannot be any dispute with regard to the preposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. It is useful to refer Para-9 of the decision and it is thus:"the satisfaction under sub-section (1) of Section 145 is of the Magistrate. The question whether on the materials before him, he should initiate proceedings or not is therefore, in his discretion which, no doubt has to be exercised in accordance with the well recognized rules of law; in that behalf. No hard and fast rule can, therefore be laid down as to the sufficiency of material for his satisfaction. The language of the sub-section is clear and unambiguous that he can arrive at his satisfaction both from the police report or "from other information" which must include an application by the party dispossessed. The High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would not go into the question of sufficiency of material, which has satisfied the Magistrate. " ( 9 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners seriously questions the power of the 14th respondent- sub-Divisional Magistrate in issuing interim injunction in favour of Respondents 1 to 13 herein in respect of the property in dispute pending enquiry under Section 145 of the code. ( 10 ) THE more substantial question that is raised in this petition is whether the sub-Divisional Magistrate can issue temporary injunction in favour of the party to protect his possession pending enquiry under Section 145 of the Code. ( 10 ) THE more substantial question that is raised in this petition is whether the sub-Divisional Magistrate can issue temporary injunction in favour of the party to protect his possession pending enquiry under Section 145 of the Code. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned Counsel Section 145 of the Code needs extraction and it reads as follows: (1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a Police Officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. (2) For the purposes of this section, the expression "land or water" includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits; of any such property. (3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code; for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute. (3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code; for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute. (4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, pursue the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute:"provided that, if it appears to the magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed, within two months next before the date on which the report of a Police Officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub- section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1 ). (5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final. (6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated as being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed. (b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3 ). (b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3 ). (7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding, and shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the purposes of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto. (8) If the Magistrate is of opinion that any crop or other produce of the property, the subject of dispute in a proceeding under this section pending before him, is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of such property, and, upon the completion of the inquiry shall make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale-proceedings thereof, as he thinks fit. (9) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceedings under this section, on the application of either party, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing. (10) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation of the powers of the Magistrate to proceed under section 107. " ( 11 ) THE material portion of the impugned order reads as follows:"wherein it has been made to appear to me that having been satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the complainant and basing on the inquiry report of the Station House Officer, pendurthy, I deem Markendeyulu, M. Sc. , bgl, Revenue Divisional Officer, and Sub- divisional Magistrate do hereby call on you both the complainants and respondents do appear before me in person or through an advocate on 12. 4. 2004 at 11. 00 a. m. , and direct to file written statements in support thereof. , bgl, Revenue Divisional Officer, and Sub- divisional Magistrate do hereby call on you both the complainants and respondents do appear before me in person or through an advocate on 12. 4. 2004 at 11. 00 a. m. , and direct to file written statements in support thereof. Wherein it has been made to appear to me that I am satisfied with the documents produce coupled with enquiry report of the station House Officer, Pendurthy that there exists a dispute relating immovable property and that the complaints have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property and it is likely that there is criminal breach of peace and public tranquility and in order to ensure law and order and to avoid any possibility of committing unlawful activities, I order restraining the respondents and their agents, supporters and henchman from entering into the petition schedule land pending enquiry in the matter. " ( 12 ) THE above would show that the sub-Divisional Magistrate restrained the petitioners herein from entering into the petition schedule land pending enquiry in the matter. In other words, interim injunction has been granted in favour of the respondents 1 to 13/complainants pending enquiry under Section 145 of the Code. ( 13 ) SECTION 146 of the Code empowers the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to pass interim orders pending enquiry under Section 145 of the Code. Nature of order which the magistrate is empowered to pass under section 146 of the Code is also indicated therein. Sub-section (1) of Section 146 reads as under:"if the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Section 145, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled; to the possession thereof: provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. " if the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, he has the power to attach subject of the dispute under sub-section (1) of Section 146. The second clause says, if he decides that one of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in section 145; and the third clause says that if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute. It means that under these two clauses, he should decide after enquiry is completed under Section 145. A comparison of the wording of the three clauses shows that a Magistrate passes an order of attachment, in case of emergency, after passing an order under section 145 (1) without holding an enquiry. Proviso to Section 146 also makes it clear that when the Magistrate makes an order of attachment after passing an order under sub-section (1) of Section 145, considering the case to be one of emergency, his jurisdiction does not cease, for that proviso says that the Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. The nature of order which the Magistrate is empowered to pass in case of emergency is indicated in section 146 (1) of the Code. " ( 14 ) IT is explicit from the above referred provisions of Section 146 (1) of the Code that the Magistrate is competent to pass interim order pending enquiry under Section 145, if he considers the case to be one of emergency. What is the nature of interim order which the Magistrate is empowered and to pass indicated i. e. , by way of attaching the subject of dispute. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 13/complainants submits that the Magistrate is competent to grant interim injunction in favour of a party who is found to be in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the complaint pending enquiry. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 13/complainants submits that the Magistrate is competent to grant interim injunction in favour of a party who is found to be in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the complaint pending enquiry. I express my inability to accede to the contention of the learned senior Counsel, since the nature of order which the Magistrate is empowered to pass pending enquiry has been indicated in under Section 146 (1) of the Code i. e. , interim attachment of disputed property. Neither Section 145 nor 146 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to grant interim injunction to protect the possession of one party pending enquiry under Section 145 of the Code. This Court while admitting the petition on 5. 5. 1997 directed both the parties not to cause any disturbance or public order not enter into the schedule property. ( 15 ) IN the circumstances of the case, i deem it appropriate to continue the said interim order pending enquiry in M. C. No. 18 of 2004 on the file of 14th respondent-Sub- divisional Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, this criminal petition is partly allowed modifying the order passed by the 14th Respondent-Sub-Divisional magistrate as indicated above. The Sub- divisional Magistrate at Visakhapatnam is directed to dispose of M. C. No. 18 of 2004 within two months of the receipt of a copy of this order.