JUDGMENT : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 7.10.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court), whereby the Criminal Revision Petition No.28/2015 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner has filed the above mentioned revision petition being aggrieved with the order dated 19.8.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Complaint Case No.371/2015 in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated on an application preferred by the SHO, Police Station Sam, District Jaisalmer. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the grand son of the petitioner has filed a complaint at the Police Station Sam, District Jaisalmer on 26.7.2015 alleging that the piece of land situated in Murabba No.207/54 was allotted in the name of the petitioner in the year 2008 and they are cultivating the said land. It is alleged in the complaint that on 25.7.2015, the respondent Ibrahim Khan and others had entered into the said agricultural land and forcibly cultivated the same. Thereafter on 28.7.2015, respondent Ibrahim Khan has filed a complaint at Police Station Sam, District Jaisalmer alleging that he is in the possession of the piece of land situated in Murraba No.207/54, which was earlier allotted in the name of the petitioner and later on the same was cancelled. It is further alleged in the complaint that when he was cultivated the said land on 24.7.2015, the son and other members of the petitioner family had forcibly entered into the said land. 4. The SHO, Sam, District Jaisalmer visited the site and found that both the parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are claiming possession over the land, whereas as per the report of the Patwari, the land was earlier allotted in the name of the petitioner but later on, the said allotment was cancelled and at present respondent Ibrahim Khan is cultivating the said land. The SHO, Sam has specifically mentioned in his report that both the parties are sitting in the opposite corners of the disputed land and there is every possibility that due to tension, there may be breach of peace. 5. The learned trial court after taking into consideration, the complaint filed by the SHO, Sam under Section 145 Cr. The SHO, Sam has specifically mentioned in his report that both the parties are sitting in the opposite corners of the disputed land and there is every possibility that due to tension, there may be breach of peace. 5. The learned trial court after taking into consideration, the complaint filed by the SHO, Sam under Section 145 Cr. P.C. and after going through the material available on record has specifically observed that at present it is not possible to ascertain that as to which party is in possession of the land in question and if immediate steps are not taken, then there is every possibility of breach of peace. The trial court after observing this has issued notice to the parties concerned to appear before it on 29.9.2015 and to submit their respective claims. The learned trial court has further observed that it is not possible to ascertain that as to which party is in possession of the land in question and therefore it is appropriate to attach the said property and to appoint the SHO, Police Station Sam as Receiver. 6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 19.8.2015 passed by the trial court under Section 145(1) and 146(1) Cr. P.C., the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the revisional court. The revisional court after taking into consideration the record of the case has given finding that from the material available on record, it is clear that there is every possibility of breach of peace and therefore the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the order under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C. and in attaching the property in question and appointing the SHO, Sam as Receiver under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. 7. Assailing the validity of the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not recorded its satisfaction regarding the breach of peace or emergent situation before passing of the order under Sections 145(1) and 146(1) Cr. P.C. It is contended that in the absence of recording of satisfaction by the trial court, the order dated 19.8.2015 passed by the trial court is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. P.C. It is contended that in the absence of recording of satisfaction by the trial court, the order dated 19.8.2015 passed by the trial court is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the revisional court while taking into consideration this aspect of the matter has illegally rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. 2013(4) Cr. L.R. (SC)1183. and the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Rajnikant Agrawal v. Gopali Devi Meena and Ors., reported in RLW 2010 (1) Raj 75. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has supported the orders passed by the courts below and argued that in the complaint filed by the SHO, Police Station Sam under Section 145 Cr. P.C., he has recorded the fact situation of the disputed land and has specifically opined that if appropriate steps are not taken, then there is every possibility of breach of peace. It is further contended that the trial court after taking into consideration the averments of the complaint under Section 145 Cr. P.C. and the other material available on record has rightly passed the order under Sections 145(1) and 146(1) Cr. P.C., therefore there is no merit in this criminal misc. petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders passed by the courts below as well as the material available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that earlier the land in question was allotted in the name of the petitioner in the year 2008, however, later on the said allotment was cancelled by the competent authority in May, 2015. The respondent No.2 has claimed his title over the land in question on the basis of his old possession and as per the report of the SHO, Police Station Sam and the report of the Patwari of area concerned, the said land was cultivated by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has claimed his title over the land in question on the basis of his old possession and as per the report of the SHO, Police Station Sam and the report of the Patwari of area concerned, the said land was cultivated by the respondent No.2. Later on, on 28.7.2015 the petitioner along with her family members had forcibly entered into the said land and both the parties were sitting in the opposite corners of the land and claiming title over the said land. Looking to the said facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court has clearly recorded its finding that at present it is not possible to decide as to which of the party is in possession of the land in question. After recording this, the trial court has further observed that looking to the fact situation at the spot, there is every possibility that there may be breach of peace. 12. There is no quarrel about proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the above referred cases, however, facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of both the cases cited above and these decisions are of no help to the petitioner. 13. Moreover, this criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr. P.C. 14. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the orders passed by both the courts below. Hence, this criminal misc. petition being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. 15. However, it is expected that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer shall decide the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. expeditiously.