JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. K. Murry, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondent No.1. 2. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.08.2020, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Rangia, Kamrup (Rural) Assam, in connection with Case No. 47/2020, under Sections 145/146(1) of the Cr.P.C. 1973. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order the learned Executive Magistrate had drawn up a proceeding under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. and also attached the disputed land as per provision of section 146(1) Cr.P.C. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “On 29.07.2020, Shri Nayan Moni Kalita -the respondent No.2 lodged one F.I.R with the Officer-Incharge Kamalpur P.S. to the effect that he is the owner as well as the possession holder of a plot of land, measuring 4 Kathas and 15 Lechas, situated at Athgaon, bearing Kheraj Myadi Patta No. 108, Dag No. 1779 of Puwanar Mauza. On 29.07.2020, at about 9.00 AM, one Satish Deka (petitioner herein) of Kusumpur village, under Kamapur P.S., committed criminal trespass into the said plot of land and forcefully constructed one Tin house and when he raised objection then Satish Deka chased and assaulted him with a ‘dao’ and also threatened to kill him. On receipt of the F.I.R. the Officer-In-Charge, Kamalpur P.S. has endorsed ASI Dhireshwar Kalita to conduct preliminary investigation. The ASI, after preliminary investigation, had filed one Non-F.I.R Case No. 14/Pt-I/2020, under Sections 107/145 Cr.P.C., dated 04.08.2020. Upon receipt of the said report on 25.08.2020, the Executive Magistrate, Rangia, apprehending serious breach of peace between the parties over the possession of disputed land, drawn up the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., directing both the parties, to appear before him along with the relevant documents in support of their respective claims and also considering the petition filed by the 1st party, Shri Nayan Moni Kalita on 24.08.2020, supported by an affidavit and also hearing the counsels and having been satisfied that both the parties are trying to occupy the same plot of land and also considering the emergent situation, had attached the disputed land under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., preventing both the parties to get access into the disputed land till disposal of the case.” 4. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved with the impugned order, the petitioner, Shri Satish Deka approached this Court under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 25.08.2020, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Rangia, in connection with Case No. 47/2020, under Sections 145/146(1) of the Cr.P.C., on the grounds that :- (a) That, the learned Executive Magistrate has committed manifest error in drawing up the proceeding and that the order is bad in law and that without going through the materials on record in its proper perspective when drawn up the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., (b) That, the dispute between parties is merely a civil dispute concerning right, title and interest over the disputed land; (c) That, there was nothing before the learned Court below to suggest that there was serious breach of peace and public tranquility caused by the petitioner. (d) That, the petition filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned Executive Magistrate, in connection with the Case No.47/2020, praying for attachment order in regard to the disputed land under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., is not supported by any title deed or documents to show that mother of the respondent No.2 is the title holder of the disputed land. (e) That, the police report is not supported by any independent witnesses so as to suggest serious breach of peace and public tranquility, to attach the disputed land and therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned order. 5. Mr. B. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Executive Magistrate has committed manifest error in drawing up the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and also by passing the attachment order under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. 5.1 Mr. B. Phukan also submits that the dispute between the parties are in respect of a plot of land and it is of civil nature and to assume jurisdiction by the Magistrate he must be satisfied that the dispute may likely to cause a “breach of peace”. It is not a breach of mental peace of the parties but apprehended breach of peace in the locality. 5.2 In support of his submission, Mr. Phukan has referred a decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in Maqbul Hussain vs. Syadur Rahman, reported in 1986 (2 GLR 167). It is not a breach of mental peace of the parties but apprehended breach of peace in the locality. 5.2 In support of his submission, Mr. Phukan has referred a decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in Maqbul Hussain vs. Syadur Rahman, reported in 1986 (2 GLR 167). It is to be mentioned here that in the said case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had held that section 145 of the Code clearly states that to assume jurisdiction, the Magistrate must be satisfied that the dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace. It is not a breach of mental peace of the parties, but apprehended breach of peace in the locality. 5.3 Further, Mr. Phukan submits that no petition under Section 145 Cr.P.C., is filed here in this case and the learned Executive Magistrate has drawn up the proceeding only on the basis of Ezahar filed by the respondent. And as such, the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., in not maintainable and therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, Mr. N. K. Murry, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition is not maintainable and the learned Executive Magistrate had passed a reasoned order, considering the emergent nature of the situation, which is likely to cause breach of peace. 6.1 Mr. Murry, further submits that the order of the learned Executive Magistrate had already been executed and the petitioner has not challenged the attachment order here in this case, and as such, the petition is not maintainable and therefore, he contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also the relevant provision of law. Also I have carefully gone through the case law referred by Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. It appears from the petition as well as from the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not challenged the attachment part of the order here in this petition. He has challenged only drawing up of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. 9. It is to be noted here that Section 145 Cr.P.C., provides for procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace. He has challenged only drawing up of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. 9. It is to be noted here that Section 145 Cr.P.C., provides for procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace. Subsection (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C., provides that whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute, likely to cause a breach of the peace, exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. Subsection (2) of Section 145 Cr.P.C., provides that for the purposes of this Section, the expression “land or water” includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property. 10. Thus, it becomes apparent that an order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. can be passed when there is a dispute between private parties, and when the Magistrate is satisfied that the private dispute may lead to disturbance of peace and public tranquility, in the locality concerned. The Magistrate’s satisfaction as regards likelihood of disturbance of peace should be based either upon the police report or from information gathered otherwise including the application by the disputant parties. 11. While dealing with the object of section 145 and 146 of the Code Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 13 December,2012 Criminal Appeal No. 2038 of 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3932 of 2012, held as under:- “12. Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace and Section 146 cannot be separated from Section 145, Cr. Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace and Section 146 cannot be separated from Section 145, Cr. P.C. It can only be read in the context of Section 145, Cr.P.C. If after the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate is of the opinion that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject of dispute at the time of the order passed under Section 145(1) or is unable to decide which of the parties was in such possession, he may attach the subject of dispute, until a competent court has determined the right of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof. 13. The ingredients necessary for passing an order under Section 145 (1) of the Code would not automatically attract for the attachment of the property. Under Section 146, a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists before he passes an order of attachment. A case of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 of the Code, has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of the peace. The Magistrate, before passing an order under Section 146, must explain the circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency. In other words, to infer a situation of emergency, there must be a material on record before Magistrate when the submission of the parties filed, documents produced or evidence adduced.” 12. Thus, it appears that the main object of the section is:- (a) To prevent the breach of peace over land and water; (b) To restore the possession of the same to the party found to have been forcibly or wrongfully dispossessed; 13. In this context, I deemed it appropriate to re-produce below the impugned order, so passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, so as to understand the dispute properly:- ORDER Dated- 25/08/2020 Received the case record on transfer. Seen the petition of the 1st party along with the police report. In this context, I deemed it appropriate to re-produce below the impugned order, so passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, so as to understand the dispute properly:- ORDER Dated- 25/08/2020 Received the case record on transfer. Seen the petition of the 1st party along with the police report. There is serious apprehension of breach of peace between the parties over the possession of the D/L. Hence, a proceeding U/S 145 Cr.P.C. can be drawn up directing both the parties to appear before the Court on the date along with the relevant documents in support of their respective claims. Serve notice to both the parties. Further, also seen the petition of the 1st party dated 24/08/2020 supported by an affidavit, Heard the 1st party along with the learned advocate. It is seen that both the parties are trying to occupy the same plot of D/L. Emergent situation can take place between the parties over the D/L. Hence, the Court is satisfied to attach the D/L U/S 146(1), preventing both the parties to get access into the D/L till disposal of the case. The attachment order is given only to prevent any untoward incidents between the parties. The O/C of the concern PS is hereby directed to execute the order & report compliance. Inform all the concerned. Date fixed-18/09/2020. 14. A cursory perusal of the aforesaid order, reveals that while drawing up the proceeding under section 145 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Executive Magistrate had relied upon the police report along with the petition filed by the 1st party, supported by an affidavit and found existence of serious apprehension of breach of peace in respect of the possession of the disputed land and therefore, drawn up the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., directing the parties to appear before him on the date fixed, along with the relevant documents, in support of their respective claim. The learned Executive Magistrate, also considering the petition dated 24.08.2020, filed by the 1st party, which is also supported by an affidavit, found that emergent situation can takes place between the parties as he found both the parties were trying to occupy the said disputed plot of land and in order to prevent untoward incidents between the parties, attached the disputed land. 15. It is however a fact that the dispute is a civil dispute concerning right, title and interest over the disputed land. 15. It is however a fact that the dispute is a civil dispute concerning right, title and interest over the disputed land. But, section 145 of the Code concerned with the restoration of possession and prevention of breach of peace and tranquility. And it appears that the learned court below has passed the impugned order keeping in mind the objectives of the sections mentioned herein above. 16. Thus, having tested the impugned order on the touchstone of the objectives of section 145/146 Cr.P.C., as discussed in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), I find that the learned Executive Magistrate had drawn up the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., strictly in accordance with law and having been satisfied on the police report, as well as the petition filed by the 1st party. And as such, the impugned order seems to be not suffered from any infirmity or illegality, requiring any interference of this Court. 17. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. But, in view of the discussion and findings, recorded herein above, the same left this Court unimpressed, and also, I find that the ratio laid down in the case of Maqbul Hussain (supra), referred by him, would not come into his aid. 18. In the result, I find no merit in this criminal revision petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 19. Stay, if any granted earlier, stands vacated. The parties have to bear their own costs.