JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioner, who claims to be the brother of opposite party no. 3, by way of this application, seeks following reliefs: “(a) Admit and allow the case. (b) Call for the records from the court below. (c) To pass an order directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri not to institute any criminal case U/S 144 Cr.P.C. over the same self land having stitiban khata no. 177/63 of Plot No. 258/598 area A0.02 decs out of area A0.018 decs of Mouza-Goudabadasahi, Puri in any manner whatsoever. (d) To pass an order awarding compensation of 5,00,000/- to be paid jointly to be paid by O.P. No. 1 and 3 for harassment, mental agony and humiliation. (e) Pass any order/orders in favour of petitioner; And for which act of your kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that opposite party no. 3, who happens to be the brother of the petitioner, filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 665 of 2017 before opposite party no. 1 for initiation of proceedings under Section 144, Cr.P.C. in respect of Plot No. 258/598 area Ac.0.02 decimals, out of area Ac.0.018 decimals, under Khata No. 177/63 of mouza Goudabadasahi, Puri holding that it is ancestral property of both the parties and there is existence of apprehension of breach of peace. As the said criminal misc. case was dropped within a couple of month, opposite party no. 3 again moved criminal misc. case no. 701 of 2017 in respect of self-same khata and plot for initiation of proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C., which was also dropped after a lapse of time. Subsequently, criminal misc. cases no. 182 of 2018 and no. 442 of 2018 were filed by opposite party no. 3, wherein orders dated 27.04.2018 and 21.06.2018 were passed by opposite party no. 1 and with expiry of the period, the same were also dropped. As such, it is alleged the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri-opposite party no. 1 has passed successive orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C at the instance of opposite party no. 3 just to harass the petitioner extensively and to humiliate him and face mental agony. Therefore, direction may be given to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri not to institute any criminal proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. for the self-same land over Stitiban Khata and, seeks reliefs as mentioned above. Hence this application. 3 just to harass the petitioner extensively and to humiliate him and face mental agony. Therefore, direction may be given to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri not to institute any criminal proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. for the self-same land over Stitiban Khata and, seeks reliefs as mentioned above. Hence this application. 3. Mr. T. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that successive applications filed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. could not and should not have been entertained by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri and entertainment of such application shows exercise of excess power which is abusive and exclusively to cause harassment, humiliation and mental agony to the petitioner by compelling to attend the court time and again. It is further contended that this Court should pass blanket order directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri not to institute any criminal proceedings under Section 144, Cr.P.C. over the disputed plot and further seeks direction to award compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to pay jointly by opposite parties no. 1 and 3. 4. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, (1983) 4 SCC 522 : AIR 1984 SC 51 and Surendra Kumar Patra v. Kanduri Bhata, (2005) 1 OLR 118 . 5. Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State contended that the CRLMP is not maintainable in view of non-joinder of proper parties. He further contended that by filing this frivolous litigation the petitioner abuses the process of Court and seeks blanket order against the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri not to institute any criminal proceedings under Section 144, Cr.P.C. over the disputed land having stitiban khata no. 177/63, Plot no. 258/598 measuring Ac.0.02 decimals, out of area Ac.0.018 decimal, of mouza-Goudabadasahi and claims compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- jointly to be paid by opposite parties no. 1 and 3 for causing harassment and mental agony to the petitioner for compelling to attend the court frequently. It is further contended that it is not the question of successive applications filed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. for self-same cause of action, rather if different cause of action arises for self-same property at different point of time, then the Magistrate is not precluded to pass prohibitory order to maintain any breach of peace, and that is within its domain. Otherwise, the provisions contained under Section 144 Cr.P.C. will be nugatory. Otherwise, the provisions contained under Section 144 Cr.P.C. will be nugatory. It is further contended that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri is the competent authority to pass order on an application filed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. considering the situation prevailing at the relevant point of time and that prohibitory order is allowed to continue only for a period of two months, as per the provisions contained under Section 144(4) Cr.P.C. Thereby, entertaining the applications for different cause of actions at different point of time and passing an order thereof cannot be said to be illegal one. More so, in the present application, the petitioner has not assailed any order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri, rather he has approached this Court making a frivolous prayer seeking direction to a statutory authority, namely, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri not to institute any criminal proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and to pass any order in respect of self-same property, which is absolutely misconceived one, and such relief sought by the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law. Therefore, he contended that since the petitioner abuses the process of court by filing this frivolous application, it should be dismissed by awarding heavy cost against the petitioner so that the litigants will not dare to waste the precious time of the Court and cause harassment to the adversary. 6. Mr. S.K. Hota, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3, while supporting the arguments advanced by Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, contended that opposite party no. 3 had approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri to institute different criminal misc. cases at different point of time with different cause of actions to prevent the petitioner from causing any breach of peace on the disputed land and, as such, if the petitioner is so aggrieved, he should have approached the civil court restraining opposite party no. 3 by getting an injunction, but instead of doing so, he has approached this court by filing this CRLMP and by this process he has abused the process of court. Thereby, the CRLMP should be dismissed with exemplary cost for abusing the process of Court and wasting Court's valuable time. 7. This Court heard Mr. T. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. S.K. Hota, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3. Thereby, the CRLMP should be dismissed with exemplary cost for abusing the process of Court and wasting Court's valuable time. 7. This Court heard Mr. T. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. S.K. Hota, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 8. The facts delineated above are not in dispute. Therefore, this Court should take into consideration whether the relief sought by the petitioner for issuance of blatant direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri not to institute any criminal proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. over the disputed property and award of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid jointly by opposite parties no. 1 and 3 can sustain in the eye of law. 9. For just and proper adjudication of the case, Section 144 Cr.P.C. is quoted below: “144. Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger. (1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, of an affray. (2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte. (3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area. (3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area. (4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof: Provided that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification. (5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under this section, by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor-in-office. (6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub-section (4). (7) Where an application under sub-section (5) or subsection (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing. 10. On perusal of the aforementioned provision, it is made clear that the order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is intended to meet an emergency situation. The order is not intended to be either permanent or semi-permanent in character. 10. On perusal of the aforementioned provision, it is made clear that the order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is intended to meet an emergency situation. The order is not intended to be either permanent or semi-permanent in character. The order is to remain valid for two months from the date of its making as provided under Sub-Section (4) of Section 144 which gives the State Government jurisdiction to extend the prohibitory order for a maximum period of six months beyond the life of the order made by the Magistrate, is clearly indicative of the position that Parliament never intended the life of an order under Section 144 of the Code to remain in force beyond two months, when made by a Magistrate. The scheme of that Section does not contemplate repetitive orders and in case the situation so warrants, steps have to be taken under other provisions of the law such as Section 107 or Section 145 of the Code. 11. Principles relating to the nature of the power under Section 144, Cr.P.C. and exercise thereof have been settled as far back as in 1883 when India was under colonial rule and there was no Constitution guaranteeing fundamental rights. A Full Bench of Madras High Court in Sundram Chetti v. The Queen, (1883) ILR 6 Mad.203 (FB) at page-220 observed : “I must nevertheless observe that this power (to, suspend the exercise of legal rights on being satisfied about the existence of an emergency) is extraordinary and that the Magistrate should resort to it only when he is satisfied that other powers with which he is entrusted are insufficient. Where rights are threatened, the persons entitled to them should receive the fullest protection the law affords them and circumstances admit of. It needs no argument to prove that the authority of the Magistrate should be exerted in the defence of rights rather than in their suspension; in the repression of illegal rather than in interference with lawful acts. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the exercise of a right is likely to create a riot, he can hardly be ignorant of the persons from whom disturbance is to be apprehended, and it is his duty to take from them security to keep the peace.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the exercise of a right is likely to create a riot, he can hardly be ignorant of the persons from whom disturbance is to be apprehended, and it is his duty to take from them security to keep the peace.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. The said observation of the Madras High Court was approvingly quoted by the Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. reported in (1982) 1 SCC 71 : AIR 1981 SC 2198 . 13. In Gulam Abbas (supra), the Supreme Court has explained the nature of the power under Section 144, Cr.P.C. and has laid down certain salient principles required to be observed at the time of exercise of the powers. The Supreme Court has said therein:— “Preservation of the public peace and tranquility is the primary function of the Government and the aforesaid power is conferred on the executive magistracy enabling it to perform that function effectively during emergent situations and as such it may become necessary for the Executive Magistrate to override temporarily private rights and in a given situation the power must extend to restraining individuals from doing acts perfectly lawful in themselves, for, it is obvious that when there is a conflict between the public interest and private rights the former must prevail. It is further well settled that the Section does not confer any power on the Executive Magistrate to adjudicate or decide disputes of civil nature or questions of title to properties or entitlements to rights but at the same time in cases where such disputes or titles or entitlements to rights have already been adjudicated and have become the subject-matter of judicial pronouncements and decrees of Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction then in the exercise of his power under Section 144 he must have due regard to such established rights and subject of course to the paramount consideration of maintenance of public peace and tranquillity the exercise of power must be in aid of those rights and against those who interfere with the lawful exercise thereof and even in cases where there are no declared or established rights the power should not be exercised in a manner that would give material advantage to one party to the dispute over the other but in a fair manner ordinarily in defence of legal rights, if there be such and the lawful exercise thereof rather than in suppressing them. In other words, the Magistrate's action should be directed against the wrong-doer rather than the wronged. Furthermore, it would not be a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the Executive Magistrate to interfere with the lawful exercise of the right by a party on a consideration that those who threaten to interfere constitute a large majority and it would be more convenient for the administration to impose restrictions which would affect only a minor Section of the community rather than prevent a larger Section more vociferous and militant.” 14. The Supreme Court has also unequivocally disapproved passing of successive orders under Section 144, Cr.P.C. 15. In Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta (supra), the Supreme Court has referred to various decisions of different High Courts and concluded as follows: “We have no doubt that the ratio of these decisions represents a correct statement of the legal position. The Supreme Court has also unequivocally disapproved passing of successive orders under Section 144, Cr.P.C. 15. In Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta (supra), the Supreme Court has referred to various decisions of different High Courts and concluded as follows: “We have no doubt that the ratio of these decisions represents a correct statement of the legal position. The proviso to Sub-Section (4) of Section 144 which gives the State Government jurisdiction to extend the prohibitory order for a maximum period of six months beyond the life of the order made by the Magistrate is clearly indicative of the position that Parliament never intended the life of an order under Section 144 of the Code to remain in force beyond two months when made by a Magistrate. The scheme of that Section does not contemplate repetitive orders and in case the situation so warrants, steps have to be taken under other provisions of the law such as Section 107 or Section 145 of the Code when individual disputes are raised and to meet a situation such as here, there are provisions to be found in the Police Act. If repetitive orders are made it would clearly amount to abuse of the power conferred by Section 144 of the Code. xx xx xx Thus the clear and definite view of this Court is that an order under Section 144 of the Code is not intended to be either permanent or semi-permanent in character. The consensus of judicial opinion in the High Courts of the country is thus in accordance with the view expressed by this Court.” 16. It is thus settled that power under Section 144, Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, which can be exercised even ex parte in an emergency on the basis of real apprehension, but restriction or prohibition should be confined to what is necessary to prevent the apprehended threat. Both fundamental and legal rights can be suspended temporarily, if public interest so demands, but such prohibition or restriction should not exceed reasonable limit. Ordinarily existing rights, if any, are to be respected and prohibition under Section 144, Cr.P.C. should be against violation of existing rights at the given moment. 17. Both fundamental and legal rights can be suspended temporarily, if public interest so demands, but such prohibition or restriction should not exceed reasonable limit. Ordinarily existing rights, if any, are to be respected and prohibition under Section 144, Cr.P.C. should be against violation of existing rights at the given moment. 17. In Surendra Kumar Patra mentioned supra, this Court held that in a prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate can merely restrict one party from doing certain act or thing and he cannot direct a party to do certain thing. Therefore, direction issued by the Executive Magistrate to CESCO authority to supply electricity to the premises of the petitioner is without jurisdiction. But, however, observed that since duration of the order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is limited for two months only and the order having passed on 16.10.2004 it has lost its force, and held that in exercise of power under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. this Court does not interfere with any order of the Magistrate that has already been lapsed due to efflux of time. 18. Applying the aforementioned propositions of law laid down by this Court as well as by the apex Court to the present context, this Court finds that different orders have been passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Puri in different context altogether and none of the order of the Magistrate is under challenge in this proceeding and those have already been lapsed due to efflux of time. The orders so passed by the Magistrate in different Criminal Misc. Cases under Section 144 Cr.P.C. are extracted below: Criminal Misc. Case No. 665 of 2017 “Extract of order dt.20.09.2017 Perused the petition of 1st party Gobinda Narayan Khuntia, S/o-Laxminarayan Khuntia of Goudabad Sahi, P.S.- Town, Dist-Puri moved through Sri. P.S Mahaprtra, Advocate for initiation of a proceeding against the 2nd party namely Biranchi Narayan Khuntia, S/o Laxminaravan Khuntia of Goudabadasahi. P.S. Puri town, Dist-Puri. Heard the leaned counsel for 1st party. The petition of 1st party speaks that the plot N. 258/598 Ac.0.002 out Ac.0.018 under Khata N. 177/63 of Mouza-Goudabada sahi is the disputed property. A room in the ground floor existing over said Ac.0.002 in the disputed property. It is ancestral property of both parties. As per partition in C.S. No. 52/60 of 75/77 the suit property was exclusively allotted to the 1st party and he is possession over the same. A room in the ground floor existing over said Ac.0.002 in the disputed property. It is ancestral property of both parties. As per partition in C.S. No. 52/60 of 75/77 the suit property was exclusively allotted to the 1st party and he is possession over the same. The 1st party uses said room in question as kitchen for preparation of Bhog in Gruha Thakurani during Durga Puja every year. Last year the 2nd party, Biranchi Narayan Khuntia has brought out a Crl. Misc. Case No. 378/2014 U/s-144 Cr.P.C against the present 1st party Gobindanarayan Khuntia concerning to the disputed property. Taking the religious sentiment of the 1st party Gohindanarayan Khuntia to consideration he was allowed to use the said room for kitchen purpose only for preparation of Bhog of Gruha Thakurani Gobindanarayan Khuntia was allowed to use the said room from 07.10.2016 to 12.10.2016 with condition that he would not take forcible possession of the said room and the rituals of Gruha Thakurani would not be interrupted. Now Gobindanarayan Khuntia filed this case on the ground that 2nd party Biranchinarayan Khuntia is trying to take forcible possession of the said room in question by keeping unusable articles inside the same, for which there is apprehension of breach of peace between both parties. Prayer has been made to abstain the 2nd party from his illegal design and pass order of status quo over the case land. I am convinced there is apprehension of breach of peace between both parties within the local limits of my jurisdiction. As such action U/s 144 Cr.P.C is felt necessary. Hence initiate a proceeding U/s-144 Cr.P.C. Accordingly I Sri. Madhusudhan Dash, OAS (l) SDM, Puri within the local limits of my jurisdiction by virtue of power conferred on me as provided U/s-144 Cr.P.C do hereby order that the 1st party Gobinda Narayan Khuntia to use the said room in question for kitchen purpose only for preparation of Bhoe of Gruha Thakurani during Durga Puja from 25.09.2017 to 30.09.2017 with certain conditions which are as under. 1. The 1st party shall file an undertaking in shape-of affidavit to the effect that he would not make any construction and take forcible possession over the suit land. 2. The usual rituals like preparation of Bhog of Gruha Thakurani shall not be interrupted in any manner from 25.09.2017 to 30.09.2017 by the 2nd Party.. 3. 1. The 1st party shall file an undertaking in shape-of affidavit to the effect that he would not make any construction and take forcible possession over the suit land. 2. The usual rituals like preparation of Bhog of Gruha Thakurani shall not be interrupted in any manner from 25.09.2017 to 30.09.2017 by the 2nd Party.. 3. Soon after the Durgapuja 2017 is over the 1st party shall make white washing of the said room at his own cost in order to make same as habitable as it was earlier. The 2nd Party Biranchinarayan Khuntia is directed to cooperate to 1st party accordingly. Send the extract of this order to the IIC Town P.S. for service upon both parties and return both the date fixed. Put up on 03.10.2017. Criminal Misc. Case No. 701/2017 “Extract of order dt.21.11.2017 The 1st party 1.- Gobinda Narayan Khuntia aged about 50 years, S/o Lte Laxminarayan Khuntia of Goudabada Sahi P.S.- Town, P.O./Dist-Puri filed a petition through his learned counsel Sri. P.S. Mahapatra, Advocate & associate for initiation of proceeding U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. against the 2nd party Biranchi Narayan, Khuntia, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Laxminarayan Khuntia of Goudabada Sahi, P.S. Puri Town, Dist-Puri. Perused the same. Heard. Register a case U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. Ask the IIC Town P.S. to cause enquiry into the matter & submit report as to whether there is apprehension of danger leading to breach of peace or not on or before date fixed. Both parties are directed to maintain status quo over case land till 07.12.2017 in order to avoid breach of peace likely to be occurred. Tahasildar, Puri is directed to get land in contention demarcated & submit demarcation report before date fixed. Put up on 07.12.2017.” Criminal Misc. Case No. 182 of 2018 “Extract of order dt.28.02.2018 The 1st party 1-Gobinda Narayan Khuntia aged about 50 years, S/o Late Laxminarayan Khuntia of Goudabada Sahi, P.S.-Town, P.O./Dist-Puri filed a petition through his learned counsel Sri. P.S. Mahapatra, Advocate & associate for initiation of proceeding U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. against the 2nd party Biranchi Narayan Khuntia, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Laxminarayan Khuntia of Goudabada Sahi, P.S. Puri Town, Dist-Puri. Perused the same. Heard. P.S. Mahapatra, Advocate & associate for initiation of proceeding U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. against the 2nd party Biranchi Narayan Khuntia, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Laxminarayan Khuntia of Goudabada Sahi, P.S. Puri Town, Dist-Puri. Perused the same. Heard. Register a case U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. Ask the IIC Twon P.S. to cause enquiry into the matter & submit report as to whether there is apprehension of danger leading to breach of peace or not on or before date fixed. Both parties are directed to maintain status quo over case land till 13.03.2018 in order to avoid breach of peace likely to be occurred. Put up on 13.03.2018.” Criminal Misc. Case No. 182 of 2018 “27.04.2018 The case record is put up today for hearing and orders. Perused the papers available in this case record. The learned counsel for 1st party files a petition to extend the period of status quo. The learned counsel for 2nd party files hazira and present and pleaded that the 1st party suppressing the facts filed another proceeding for the same and cause action and for the self same property vide Crl. Misc. Case No. 701/2017 which has been disposed of on 21.01.2018 of proceeding to 145 Cr.P.C. and the learned SDM, Puri has been advised both parties to take shelter in appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. It is also revealed that this Court has already initiated proceeding U/s. 107 of Cr.P.C. vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 87/18 between parties. Hence there is no necessity of initiation of a proceeding U/s. 144 of Cr.P.C. against the same party members. As admitted by the 1st party his petition one mutation appeal No. 58/2016 is pending in the Court of Sub-Collector, Puri. Also glanced through the citation submitted by the 1st party in AIR 1984 S.C. S. 51 Crl.L.J. 1872. Heard argument and counter argument for both sides. It is revealed that the police report has not been received. The statutory time limit of this case is going to be over today, I am not inclined to prolong the case anymore. With these observation, the case is dropped. However, the parties concerned may take shelter in appropriate forum for settlement of their dispute if they think fit. Pronounced in the open Court on the 27th April 2018.” 19. The application filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Puri in Criminal Misc. With these observation, the case is dropped. However, the parties concerned may take shelter in appropriate forum for settlement of their dispute if they think fit. Pronounced in the open Court on the 27th April 2018.” 19. The application filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Puri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 442 of 2018 is reproduced hereunder : “In the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri Criminal Misc. Case No. 442 of 2018 Gobinda Narayan Khuntia, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Khuntia, resident of Goudabada Sahi, P.S.- Puri Town, Dist.- Puri. ……. 1st Party Vrs. Biranchi Narayan Khuntia, S/o Late Laxminarayan Khuntia, resident of Goudabada Sahi, P.S.- Puri Town, Dist.- Puri. …….. 2nd Party In the matter of: An application u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. filed by the 1st member. The above named 1st party member most respectfully begs to state as follows:— (1) That the property situates in Mouza-Goudabada Sahi, Khata No. 177/63, Plot No. 258/598, Area Ac.0.002 decs. Out of total area Ac.0.018 dec. is the disputed property of this proceeding. 2. That the property described in the schedule below and other property is the ancestral property of the present 1st party and 2nd party members. After death of ancestor both the party preferred a partition suit vide C.S. No. 52/60 of 75/77 amongst themselves and the proceeding land was exclusively allotted to the share of the present 1st party and subsequently the present 1st party mutated his name in Tahasil record of rights and he is in peaceful possession of the proceeding land without any hindrance from any quarter. The present 2nd party challenging the mutation of the allotted land of the 1st party has filed mutation appeal before the sub-Collector, Puri vide Mutation Appeal No. 58/16 which is pending before the sub-collector, Puri. The 2nd party taking plea of wrong enhancement of area in favour of the 1st party always creating disturbance in the locality. The 1st party previously preferred criminal proceeding U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. and expiry of the stipulated period the 2nd party again creating disturbance in the locality started illegal construction by encroaching upon the proceeding land. The 2nd party taking plea of wrong enhancement of area in favour of the 1st party always creating disturbance in the locality. The 1st party previously preferred criminal proceeding U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. and expiry of the stipulated period the 2nd party again creating disturbance in the locality started illegal construction by encroaching upon the proceeding land. (3) That the 1st party has no semblance of right, title, interest and possession over the proceeding land taking the advantage of innocence of the 1st party the second party being colluded with the local anti social on 19.06.2018 came to proceeding land and started construction work by encroaching upon the proceeding land without any rhyme and reason. But due to timely intervention of the 1st party the 2nd party members could not translate his illegal motive in to action. The second party member has collected men and materials to fulfill his illegal desire. So there is every possibility of bloodshed and murder and the 1st party member is apprehending danger to the proceeding land. It is also submitted that the public tranquility of the locality may be disturbed. That unless immediate prevention is made, the 1st party will sustain irreparable loss and damage which can not be compensated by any means. So finding no alternative, the 1st party member has filed this application for relief. PRAYER Under the circumstances, the 1st party prays that the Court be pleased to initiate a proceeding U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. directing the 2nd party member to abstain from his illegal design and your honour be further pleased to pass an order of status - quo with respect of the suit property and directed the 2nd party member not to arise any construction over the disputed till disposal of the proceeding and for which act of your Honour's kindness, the 1st party shall as in duty bound and ever pray.” 20. The extract of order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 442 of 2018 is quoted hereunder:— Criminal Misc. Case No. 442 of 2018 “Extract of order dt.21.06.2018 The 1st party Gobinda Narayan Khuntia, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Khuntia, resident of Goudabad Sahi, P.S.- Puri Town, Dist-Puri filed a petition through his learned counsel Sri. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate for initiation of proceeding U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. against 2nd party namely 1. Case No. 442 of 2018 “Extract of order dt.21.06.2018 The 1st party Gobinda Narayan Khuntia, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Khuntia, resident of Goudabad Sahi, P.S.- Puri Town, Dist-Puri filed a petition through his learned counsel Sri. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate for initiation of proceeding U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. against 2nd party namely 1. Biranchinarayan Khuntia, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Khuntia, resident of Goudabad Sahi P.S.- Puri Town, Dist-Puri. Perused the same. Heard. Register a case U/s. 144 Cr.P.C. Ask the IIC Town P.S. to cause enquiry into the matter and submit report as to whether there is breach of peace or not. The 2nd party is directed to stop construction if any raising over the suit plot till 26.06.2018. The 2nd party is also directed to appear in this Court on 26.06.2018 at 3.00 P.M. Send the extract of this order along with copy of petition of 1st party to IIC Town P.S. for enquiry & report and service upon the 2nd party member & return before the date fixed. Put up on 26.06.2018.” 21. Except the orders mentioned above, nothing has been placed on record to indicate that successive applications were filed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. for the self-same cause of action by which the petitioner was made to suffer humiliation, and mental agony, though the dispute relates to civil in nature. Rather the extract of orders clearly indicate that at different point of time since the petitioner caused harassment, opposite party no. 3 had approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury to be caused by the petitioner. 22. In a prohibitory order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can merely restrict one party from doing certain act or thing and he cannot direct a party to do certain thing. Apart from the same, the duration of the order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is limited to two months only and in the present case, the petitioner has not challenged any individual order, rather has filed this application seeking a blanket order directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri not to initiate any criminal case under Section 144 Cr.P.C. over the disputed property and if the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is taken into consideration, it has already lapsed long since. As the petitioner has not assailed any particular order in the present proceeding, which has already lost its force, the CRLMP cannot sustain by efflux of time. As such, the relief, which has been sought in a blanket manner, cannot also be granted to the petitioner. Rather, the petitioner has abused the process of court by filing such frivolous application. 23. In view of filing of such misconceived and frivolous petition, the petitioner has abused the process of Court and in that case, such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly. 24. In Dr. Budhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530 : AIR 1996 SC 2687 , the Supreme Court observed as under “No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.” 25. Similar view has also been reiterated by the apex Court in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573 : AIR 1998 SC 1297 , Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349 : AIR 2004 SC 280 , T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 28 : AIR 2006 SC 1774 , B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association, (2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) : AIR 2006 SC 3106 , Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281 : AIR 2008 SC 913 and Chaman Lal Saraf (dead thr. LRs.) v. State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 552 . 26. In Sabia Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1999) 1 SCC 271 : AIR 1999 SC 2284 , the apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly. 27. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161 , the apex Court held that: “In consonance with the principle of equity, justice and good conscience judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. 27. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161 , the apex Court held that: “In consonance with the principle of equity, justice and good conscience judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic costs, which the Respondent or the Defendant has in fact incurred in order to defend himself in the legal proceedings. The courts would be fully justified even imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused.” 28. Accordingly, in that case, the applicant-industry was directed to pay costs of litigation on account of enormous court's time which had been wasted for all those years. The apex Court directed the applicant-industry to pay costs of Rs. 10 lakhs in both the interlocutory applications. 29. In addition to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the CRLMP suffers from non-joinder of proper parties, meaning thereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri, who has passed the order under Section 144 Cr.P.C., has not been impleaded as party in the application. Therefore, the CRLMP has to be dismissed. 30. Considering the facts from all angles, as discussed above, both factually and legally, the CRLMP devoids of any merit and is thus dismissed. However, for causing harassment to opposite party no. 3 and wasting Court's time, which amounts to abuse of the process of Court, this Court imposed cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) against the petitioner so as to give a caution to the litigants not to file such frivolous application in future seeking blanket relief from this Court. The aforesaid cost so imposed shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Advocate's Welfare Fund of the Orissa High Court Bar Association within a period of three months hence, failing which recovery will be made by following due process of law.