JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Autar Singh, J.—This criminal revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2002 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah in Criminal Revision No. 133 of 1999 (Smt. Sahdevi v. State of U.P. and others), whereunder the revision has been allowed and the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bharthna, Etawah in Case No. 30/17/30 of 1997, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. (Sahdevi v. Smt. Vidhya Devi and others) has been set aside and the case has been remanded to the Court below for decision afresh. 2. I have heard Dr. K.P. Bajpai, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the respondent No. 2 on this revision and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3 to oppose this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the Court below has ignored the settled findings of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which is based on documentary evidence i.e. sale deed executed by the earlier owner, the father of both revisionists and the respondent No. 1, in favour of his daughter Smt. Vidhya Devi. The learned Court below has passed the impugned order without upsetting the settled findings in respect of title and possession over the land in dispute. The learned Magistrate has passed the final order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in above case. 4. A perusal of impugned judgment and order goes to show that the learned Revisional Court has set aside the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate, Bharthana, Etawah on the ground that no opportunity to file objection and adduce evidence was afforded to the parties against the inquiry report submitted by the Tehsildar. It appears that five witnesses on behalf of first party and one witness on behalf of other party were examined, but the learned Revisional Court did not find the testimony of five witnesses examined on behalf of first party to be worth reliance. It appears that five witnesses on behalf of first party and one witness on behalf of other party were examined, but the learned Revisional Court did not find the testimony of five witnesses examined on behalf of first party to be worth reliance. The learned Magistrate also observed in his order that the dispute relating to the possession of the disputed property between the parties under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was going on since 15.9.1986 and the case was decided, against which the revision was preferred and the Revisional Court remanded the matter to the said Court of Magistrate for decision afresh and thereafter in the said case the learned Magistrate directed the Tehsildar to conduct spot inspection and submit his enquiry report. The learned Tehsildar submitted his enquiry report and the learned Magistrate himself made spot inspection, filed his inspection report and found that there was no apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. 5. The learned Magistrate being satisfied with the inquiry report of the Tehsildar and evidence available on record, found possession of second party, namely, Smt. Vidhya Devi over disputed property and also found that there was no apprehension of breach of peace between the parties and thus the learned Magistrate decided the case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. holding the possession of second party over disputed property. The learned Magistrate further directed the Station Officer concerned to ensure possession of second party over the disputed property. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the first party preferred Criminal Revision No. 133 of 1999 before Sessions Judge, Etawah. There was nothing on record to suggest that the learned Magistrate did not afford any opportunity to the parties to file objection against inquiry report submitted the Tehsildar and the report submitted by the Magistrate himself. In fact the first party filed objections against enquiry report of Tehsildar and the learned Magistrate referred the same in his judgment. The litigation between the parties should not be allowed to prolong for indefinite period and ultimately it should come to an end. The learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality or irregularity in directing the Tehsildar to submit his inquiry report with regard to the possession of the disputed property. 7. Section 148 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to make the inquiry into the matter. The learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality or irregularity in directing the Tehsildar to submit his inquiry report with regard to the possession of the disputed property. 7. Section 148 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to make the inquiry into the matter. The learned Magistrate may also furnish him with such written instructions as may seem necessary for his guidance. Section 148 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced below: “148. Local inquiry.—(1) Whenever a local inquiry is necessary for the purposes of Section 145, Section 146 or Section 147, a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate may depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to make the inquiry, and may furnish him with such written instructions as may seem necessary for his guidance, and may declare by whom the whole or any part of the necessary expenses of the inquiry shall be paid. (2) The report of the person so deputed may be read as evidence in the case.” 8. The learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality or irregularity in making spot inspection of the disputed property and submitting his report. The learned Magistrate on the basis of inquiry report submitted by Tehsildar and evidence on record, found possession of second party, namely, Smt. Vidhya Devi over disputed land. It was not open for the Revisional Court to enter into the findings of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate and record different findings, unless the same was found to be perverse. The learned Revisional Court did not record any observation to this effect that the findings recorded by the Magistrate was found to be perverse or against the evidence on record. Consequently the Revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing revision and setting aside the judgment and order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate. 9. Thus this revision is allowed and the judgment and order dated 18.10.2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Etawah is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bharthna, Etawah is confirmed. ————