Order Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 2. It appears that upon an application filed by the opposite party no.2-1st party, a proceeding was initiated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 30.5.2011, vide Case no.33 of 2011 wherein notice was issued. Pursuant to that, petitioner-2nd party did appear and submitted its show cause. On 8.7.2011, nobody appeared on behalf of 1st party-opposite party no.2. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-2nd party did appear. 3. The court having heard learned counsel appearing for the 2nd party-petitioner passed an order for conversion of 144 proceeding into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide order dated 8.7.2011. 4. Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Rev. No.4 of 2012 before the Sessions Judge, Bokaro. That revision application was dismissed after finding no illegality with the order of conversion. 5. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed. 6. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 8.7.2011 under which a proceeding under Section 144 has been converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is quite illegal as the Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction that on account of bona fide land dispute there exists by apprehensive of breach of peace between the parties whereas it is precondition for initiating or converting 144 proceeding into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. In this respect learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Radheshyam Sharma and another vs. Jagtendra Prasad Jaiswal [2010(1) JCR 632 (jhr)] and also in a case of Udai Narain Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and another [2006 (4) East Cr.C 450 (Pat)] wherein it has been held that for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate must satisfy itself that there has been apprehension of breach of peace on account of bona fide land dispute. 8. Thus, it was submitted that both the courts below has committed illegality in passing the impugned orders. 9. 8. Thus, it was submitted that both the courts below has committed illegality in passing the impugned orders. 9. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the Magistrate while initiating a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has recorded his satisfaction and since that satisfaction was there while initiating a proceeding under Section 144, no further requirement is there of recording the same satisfaction while converting 144 proceeding into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Further submission which was advanced on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is that the order of conversion was affirmed by the revisional court and thereby it would not be proper for this Court by invoking power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to disturb the concurrent finding of the court below. 11. In this respect learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Janardhan Pathak vs. State of Bihar and another [2009(4) East Cr.C363 (Pat)]. 12. It be stated that the order is being challenged simply on the ground that satisfaction, what should have been there for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 or for conversion of 144 proceeding into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is a pre-condition, is not there and thereby the order can be said to be without jurisdiction. 13. From perusal of the provision as contained in Section 145 sub-clause (1), it would appear that pre condition for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 is that there should be bona fide land dispute and that dispute may result into an apprehension of breach of peace. The said satisfaction is necessarily to be there for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or even in a case where 144 proceeding is converted into 145 proceeding. The said provision has been laid down by the Patna High Court in a case of Udai Narain Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and another (supra) and similar proposition has already been laid down by this Court in a case of Radheshyam Sharma and another vs. Jagtendra Prasad Jaiswal (supra). 14. Accordingly, the order dated 8.7.2011 passed by the Magistrate and also the dated 19.5.2012 passed by the revisional court are hereby set aside. 15. 14. Accordingly, the order dated 8.7.2011 passed by the Magistrate and also the dated 19.5.2012 passed by the revisional court are hereby set aside. 15. The matter is remanded back before the Magistrate concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. 16. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.