JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Challenging the order dated 7/7/2014, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Auraiya, in purported exercise of power under section 145(1) Cr.P.C., a revision was preferred by Durga Prasad, the third respondent. The revisional court has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 7/7/2014 passed by the learned Magistrate. The revisional court has held that for initiating proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. it is a sine qua non that there should be a dispute which is likely to cause a breach of peace between the parties. It has been noted by the revisional court that in the impugned order, by which the proceedings were initiated, there is no satisfaction recorded by the learned Magistrate regarding likelihood of breach of peace. It has further been noted by the revisional court that the preliminary order is absolutely vague as it does not disclose the parties between whom the dispute exists. In such view of the matter, the revisional court has set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially tried to assail the validity of the order passed by the revisional court, but thereafter, very fairly conceded that in the order of the learned Magistrate, no satisfaction has been recorded regarding likelihood of any breach of peace. He however submitted that liberty be granted to the petitioner to move to the Magistrate afresh, as according to the petitioner, there is still a likelihood of breach of peace. 3. In case there is likelihood of breach of peace, it is open to the petitioner or any other party to approach the learned Magistrate, for which no liberty is required. However, the impugned order passed by the revisional court is strictly based on appreciation of the facts and law and does not call for any interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed.