ORDER K. Bhakthavatsala, J. The petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the order dated 5-11-2007 made in Case No.MAG.12/2007-08 on the file of respondent No.1/Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore. 2. Heard arguments. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Petition may be stated as under: Sri Sri Sri Shivapuri Mahaswamiji of Omkarashrama, Bangalore, passed away on 25-7-2007. It is the case of the petitioner that on 9-8-2007, he was incarnated as the Mathadhipathi of Omkarashrama as per the desire of Shivapuri Mahaswamiji. As many as 12 Matadhipathis and many others had participated in the incarnation ceremony. The contesting respondent No.4/Sri Purushothamanandapuri, Bhagiratha Peetha, Hosadurga, was also invited for the ceremony of incarnation as Peethadhipathi of Omkarashrama on 9-8-2007 and he participated in the ceremony. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26-11-2005, Shivapuri Mahaswamiji had executed a Will naming the petitioner as his successor to the Omkarasharama. After death of Sri Shivapuri Mahaswamiji, on 25-7-2007, the Will dated 26-11-2005, which was in the custody of Sri Jayachandra Setty, the scribe of the Will, came to light. The said Will came to be registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bangalore, on 14-9-2007. After the petitioner was incarnated on 9. 8-2007, he had been managing the affairs of the Omkarashrama and performing Navavarna pooja, which is being done continuously for the last 45 years by Sri Shivapuri Mahaswamiji. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Navavarna pooja requires to be performed every day without any break. But as a result of an order passed by respondent No.1/Sub Divisional Magistrate, it came in the way of performing the said pooja and also affecting the sentiments of the petitioner as well as the devotees of the Ashram as no Administrator can arrange Navavarna pooja to Sri Chakra. It is alleged that the Respondent No.4/Swamiji started contending that he should be incarnated as Mathadhipathi as he belonged to the community of the previous Mahaswamy, and he went to media and gave various false statements to uproot the petitioner from the Ashram. Some persons made a representation to the Governor stating that the petitioner has done some injustice to them. On the next day, the same was published in some daily newspapers. Some persons made a representation to the Governor stating that the petitioner has done some injustice to them. On the next day, the same was published in some daily newspapers. It is also contended that the contesting respondent No.4, is neither as follower nor a disciple of Shivapuri Swamy of Omkarashrama, and therefore he cannot have any grievance against the petitioner. Despite of that the respondent No.4 has started mis-leading the community people and his followers to rage a war against the petitioner. On 23-10-2007 it appeared in media stating that respondent No.4 along with 50,000 people would visit Samadhi of Sri Shivapuri Mahaswamiji to offer pooja. Respondent No.2/Kengeri Police, in consultation of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Division, submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore South, with a request to take appropriate action in the matter. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on 24-10-2007, without notice to the petitioner, passed an order under Section 146(1) of Cr.P.C., appointing the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, as the Receiver and directed the latter to take charge of Omkarashrama. The Tahsildar, on 25-10-2007 at 9.30 a.m. visited Omkarashrama and served copy of the order dated 24-10-2007 on the petitioner and directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of the properties of the Ashram to him. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the respondent No.1 dated 24-10-2007, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision Petition in No.4674/2007. This Court by order dated 31-10-2007, quashed the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 with a liberty to initiate proce edings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., if circumstances so exist. The respondent No.1 on the same day namely 31-10-2007 issued notice to both the parties to appear before him on 2-11-2007 at 11 a.m. Thereafter, by his order dated 5-11-2007, has appointed respondent No.3/Tahsildar as Receiver and directed the petitioner and respondent No.4 to approach the Civil Court in order to resolve the dispute. The respondent No.1 on the same day namely 31-10-2007 issued notice to both the parties to appear before him on 2-11-2007 at 11 a.m. Thereafter, by his order dated 5-11-2007, has appointed respondent No.3/Tahsildar as Receiver and directed the petitioner and respondent No.4 to approach the Civil Court in order to resolve the dispute. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the proceedings on the following grounds: (i) that there was no report submitted by the Police Officer requesting the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. nor the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has collected any information from any other source to the effect that there is likelihood of breach of peace, (ii) that as on the date of issuing notice i.e., on 31-10-2007, there was no warranting situation for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. (iii) that during the course of proceedings, the respondent No.3/ Police Inspector of Kengeri appeared and gave statement stating that subsequent to 25-10-2007 there was no warranting situation to initiate proceedings under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C., (iv) that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, without taking into consideration the various factors pleaded by the petitioner, erred in appointing respondent No.3 as a Receiver of Omkarashrama, (v) that the observation made in the impugned order by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that he was unable to find out as to who has been in possession of the property after the demise of Shivapuri Swamiji; there was ill-will between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and at any stage they may create law and order problem is bad in law, (vi) that the respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, at the instance of some political leaders, has passed the impugned order dated 24-10-2007, the same was quashed by order dated 31-10-2007, (vii) that in the absence of passing preliminary order, before initiating proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate is without jurisdiction, (viii)that the petitioner had been in possession of the properties of the Omkarashrama, and the respondent No.2, in the reports submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has categorically stated that the petitioner was in possession of the properties of the Omkarashrama, (ix) that while passing the impugned order under Section 145(6) of Cr.P.C., it was obligatory on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to find out as to who was in possession of the properties on the basis of the material evidence made available on record. 4. The contesting respondent No.4 has filed statement of objections stating that he was associated with Shivapuri Swamiji and he trained him. It is further stated that Shivapuri Swamiji has executed a Will on 16-7-2007 bequeathing all the assets and properties of Omkarashrama to a Trust appointing him as Matadipathi for the purpose of management of the Trust. Thus he has succeeded to the Gurupeeta of Omkarashrama and Shivapuri Swamiji has not executed any other Will other than the Will executed in his favour. It is further contended that he has been in lawful possession of Omkarashrama as a trustee and the petitioner was only an occasional visitor to the Ashrama. The petitioner does not belong to the community of Shivapuri Swamiji. On the other hand, the 4th respondent belongs to Upper community to which Shivapuri Swamiji belonged. It is stated in para-16 of the statement of objections that on 25-10-2007, some of the supporters of the petitioner came to the Ashrama and started claiming that the properties are belonged to the Ashrama on the strength of the alleged disputed Will executed by Shivapuri Swamiji. The 4th respondent being the Honorary Chairman of the Trust installed by Shivapuri Swamiji, resisted the illegal activities of the petitioner causing, law and order problem and the Police lathi charged. As there was apprehension of breach of peace, the Police submitted a report to the 1st respondent/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who after following the procedure laid down under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., passed an order on 5-11-2007 appointing the 3rd respondent as the Receiver of the properties of Omkarashrama and there is no merit in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no such ground for the respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceedings on 24-10-2007 as well as on 31-10-2007. It was further submitted that the petitioner was in possession of Omkarashrama and the respondent No.3/Tahsildar took possession of the Ashrama from the petitioner. Therefore, it was the duty of the Police to give protection and avoid disturbances if any. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the following decisions: (i) AIR 1968 SC 1441 (R.H. Bhutani Vs. Miss. Therefore, it was the duty of the Police to give protection and avoid disturbances if any. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the following decisions: (i) AIR 1968 SC 1441 (R.H. Bhutani Vs. Miss. Mani J. Desai) on the point that the Magistrate must be satisfied before initiating proceedings that a dispute regarding an immovable property exists and that such dispute is likely to cause breach of peace. But once he is satisfied of these two conditions, the section requires him to pass a preliminary order under sub-section (1) and thereafter to make an enquiry under sub-section (4) and pass a final order under sub-section (6). It is not necessary that at the time of passing the final order the apprehension of breach of peace should continue or exist. The enquiry under Section 145 is limited to see who was in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order irrespective of the rights of the parties. (vide para-8). (ii) 1995 Crl. L.J. 2133 (Gajendra Singh and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) on the point that in a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., the Court of law is required to see either possession of a particular party on the date of preliminary order passed or prior to two months from the date of preliminary order. Thus the main object of Section 145 of Cr.P.C., is to decide that whose actual feet is over the land in dispute meaning thereby actual physical possession and not legal possession supported by title. (vide para-30) (iii) AIR 1958 Jammu and Kashmir 17 (Ahsan Sofi and Others Vs. Sona Mir) on the point that where no order has been drawn up in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 145, Section 537, of Cr.P.C. (1898), would not be applicable and the invalidity incurable. The failure to draw up the preliminary order in itself will cause prejudice to the other side. No action under sub-section (4) of Section 145, second proviso can be taken by a Magistrate until he has passed the preliminary order under sub-section (1) of Section 145 (vide para-2) (iv) 1991 Crl.L.J. 1556 (Shankarlal Vs. Alhaz Khaja Abdul Hasan and Another) on the point that one of the mandatory requirements of Section 145(1) and 146 (1) of Cr.P.C., that the authority who passes the order shall mention the grounds. Mere quoting the incidents is not sufficient. Alhaz Khaja Abdul Hasan and Another) on the point that one of the mandatory requirements of Section 145(1) and 146 (1) of Cr.P.C., that the authority who passes the order shall mention the grounds. Mere quoting the incidents is not sufficient. He must apply his mind to the material made available and then arrive at a conclusion as to whe ther any grounds have been made out and action as requested should be initiated or not. (vide para -16) (v) AIR 1921 Patna 445 (Chhedi Lal Marwari and Others Vs. Mahabir Prasad Sukul) on the point that in order that proceedings should be legal, under Section 145, the information upon which the Magister purports to act must be information, which is of a character which properly satisfied him that at the date when he draws up those proceedings there was an actual-likelihood of a breach of the peace. (vi) 1987 Crl. L.J. 495 (Gulab Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan And Others) on the point that a Magistrate can proceed to decide the dispute under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., only when he has drawn up the preliminary order under sub-section (1). In the absence of the preliminary order, the subsequent proceedings, e.g., the attachment of the subject matter of dispute on the ground of emergency, are without jurisdiction and erroneous in law. (vide paras 5 and 10) 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader argued in support of the impugned order contending that there is no illegality or infirmity. 8. The learned Counsel for the contending respondent No.4, rival claimant, submitted that as there was a danger to tranquility, the police submitted a report and the respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate has taken appropriate action in accordance with law. He has cited the following decisions: (i) 1981 Crl. L.J. 170 (Muma Mir and Others Vs. Ghulam Nabi Sheikh and Others) on the point that it is the duty of the Magistrate to record in writing in clear terms that a dispute exists regarding land within his jurisdiction, that it is such as likely to cause breach of peace and the grounds of his being so satisfied. If his order is a composite one under Section 145(1) and (4) of Cr.P.C., and he records his satisfaction on both these points at one place or the other, the proceedings do not become without jurisdiction. If his order is a composite one under Section 145(1) and (4) of Cr.P.C., and he records his satisfaction on both these points at one place or the other, the proceedings do not become without jurisdiction. (ii) 1984 Crl.L.J. NOC 130 (Ram Prasad and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) on the point that when a Magistrate wants to take preventive action under Section 145, he should draw an order under Section 145(1) commonly known as preliminary order. The preliminary order must contain the particulars that the Magistrate was satisfied as to the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace, the grounds of his satisfaction and a direction requiring the parties concerned to attend his Court on a date fixed by him and put in written statements of their claims in respect of the fact of actual possession of the subject matter of dispute. That is all which is required for a Magistrate to proceed under Section 15. The law does not prescribe that such a preliminary order should be in any particular form. It is the substance of the order which matters and not the manner in which it is drawn up. Where the preliminary order drawn up by the Magistrate on the report of the Police Officer fulfils the above requirements it does not become bad in law simply because it has not been happily worded. There is nothing illegal if simultaneously after the preliminary order the Magistrate also issues an order for attachment of the property in dispute. 9. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsels for the parties, a question that arises for considerations: Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was justified in initiating Proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and appointing the Taluka Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar as Receiver of Omkarashrama? 10. Answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons: The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 31-10-2007 quashed the previous order dated 24-10-2007 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore. 10. Answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons: The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 31-10-2007 quashed the previous order dated 24-10-2007 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore. He has observed that the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate to pass an order under sub-section (1) of Section 146 of Cr.P.C. is only if after he passes an order under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. He has further observed that he cannot summarily pass an order under Section 146(1) without recording a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he has held that the impugned order dated 24-10-2007 passed by the respondent No.1 as premature and allowed the Petition and the impugned order bearing No.MAG:CR:12/07-08 dated 24-10-2007 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate South Taluk, was quashed, with liberty to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take fresh action, if the circumstances so exist, in accordance with law, but the Tahsildar, who is in possession, shall continue till 5.00 p.m., on 5-11-2007. But on the very same day of order viz., 31-10-2007, the Executive Magistrate has issued notice to the petitioner and the contesting respondent No.4 calling upon them to appear along with all documents before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 2-11-2007 on 11 a.m., for enquiry. The parties filed their respective objections and documents before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Again the Magistrate for the reasons stated in the impugned order dated 5-11-2007 reiterated as to taking over possession of the Ashram and appointing Tahsildar as a Receiver. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that on 10-9-2007, respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate has written a letter to the P.S.I, Kengeri, stating that under Section 145 of Cr:P.C., he had powers to appoint Receiver to the Ashram. It is further observed that as per the report of the PSI, Kengeri, Sri Madhusudanandapuri (the petitioner herein) was already appointed as successor to the Ashram on 9-8-2007 and he is in possession of the Ashram. Therefore, the Magistrate directed the police to give protection to the petitioner to continue as Matadhipathi of Ashram till the competent Court decides as to the successor of the Ashram or till the Government appoints a Receiver. Therefore, the Magistrate directed the police to give protection to the petitioner to continue as Matadhipathi of Ashram till the competent Court decides as to the successor of the Ashram or till the Government appoints a Receiver. As per sub-section (1) of Section 145 of Cr.P.C., 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. In the instant case, on 31-10-2007, when the learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order, there was no such material placed on record to show that there was a dispute which was likely to cause the breach of peace. At the cost of repetition, it must be mentioned that though the earlier order dated 24-10-2007 was quashed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, he has directed that the existing position of the Tahsildar being in possession of the Ashram shall continue till 5.00 p.m. on 5-11-2007. Under such circum-stances, absolutely there was no material placed before the respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, so as to exercise as power under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, the material placed on record indicates that the Tahsildar has taken over the possession of Ashram from the petitioner. When the petitioner himself was in possession of the Ashram, it was the duty of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Police to give him protection, instead of initiating proceedings under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C., or passing orders under Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner claims that he has succeeded to the Ashram and he was in possession from 9-8-2007 until the petitioner was dispossessed by the Tahsildar. The petitioner and the respondent No.4/rival claimant claim that Sri Shivapuri Mahaswamiji has left a Will dated 26-11-2005 and 16-7-2007, respectively, in their favour. It is for the parties to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief. The petitioner and the respondent No.4/rival claimant claim that Sri Shivapuri Mahaswamiji has left a Will dated 26-11-2005 and 16-7-2007, respectively, in their favour. It is for the parties to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief. The material placed on record shows that the petitioner was in possession of the Ashram and at no time the respondent No.4 was in possession of the Ashram. Under such circumstances, the action of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiating proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Mere information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace is not sufficient to exercise powers under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and dispossess the person who is in possession of the property in dispute and appoint a receiver under Section 146 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 11. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner supports the case of the petitioner. Whereas the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 are of no avail to the case of respondent No.4. 12. In the result, the Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5-11-2007 made in Case No.MAG.12/2007-08 on the file of respondent No. 1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore quashed. Further, the respondent No.3 is directed to deliver possession Omkarshrama to the petitioner on or before 14-2-2008, and also extend Police protection to the petitioner until the aggrieved party approaches the competent Civil Court and obtains orders.