JUDGMENT : Susmita Phukan Khaund, J. Heard learned counsel Mr. H. Das for the petitioners. Also heard learned counsel Mr. A. Ganguly for the respondents. 2. The petitioners No. 1. Sri Prasanta Rajkhowa, 2. Sri Lalit Rajkhowa, 3. Sri Leela Das, 4. Sri Pradip Sharma, 5. Sri Cheni Gowala have filed this application under Section 438 /442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Misc Case No. 130/2023. 3. Sri Bhadeshwar Das, Sri Madhab Das, Sri Tapan Rajkhowa, Sri Soma Rajkhowa, Sri Bhodia Das, Sri Leela Das and Sri Rajib Das, are arrayed as respondents in this case. 4. An FIR was lodged by the respondents on 24.07.2023 with the police at Bihpuria police station with allegation that there are two beels (water body) between the embankment of E & D and the villagers were maintaining the beels in the name of Harimandir for many years. In the year 2018, a committee was constituted by the villagers to maintain the aforementioned beels. The petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 are the Secretary and President, respectively, of the committee. The committee and the two beels are named as Sudhakantha Dr. Bhupen Hazarika Meen Palon Committee. The beels are covered by 25-26 Bighas of land approximately. 5. It is submitted that the intent of the villagers were to be economically stable from the income of the aforementioned beels. After formation of the committee i.e., during the tenure of the earlier Government, an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs was granted in favour of the aforementioned beels but it has been stated that the accused No. 1 and 2, named in the FIR, cleaned only one beel and misappropriated the remaining amount at the time when they were in charge as Secretary and President of the committee. Furthermore, the accused No. 1 started a piggery near the beels and the waste of the fodder was drained into the beel. When the villagers raised objection, the accused verbally abused the villagers, uttering obscene words, at the behest of accused No. 3. 6. Furthermore, the accused No. 1 started a piggery near the beels and the waste of the fodder was drained into the beel. When the villagers raised objection, the accused verbally abused the villagers, uttering obscene words, at the behest of accused No. 3. 6. The villagers by contributing Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) per person managed to clean the other beel for pisciculture in the said beel, but after a few days, the petitioner No. 1 allegedly, closed the entrance of the beel by constructing a bamboo fence and a boundary wall. Thus, the villagers and their cattle were restrained from entering into the beel and from drinking water from the beel. 7. It is further submitted that as per the rule of the committee, there ought to be a meeting every month to apprise the villagers about the beel, but since 2018, not a single meeting has been held. This impelled the villagers to lodge a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn deputed Jintu Sharma, an ADC to inquire into the matter. 8. During the ongoing inquiry, the petitioner No. 1 and 2 in cohorts with the others formed a new committee which includes only their relatives as well as personal tractor driver and other interested persons, without the knowledge of the villagers. The petitioner No. 4 was selected as the President and the petitioner No. 5 was selected as a Member of the said committee. 9. Pursuant thereto, Bihpuria police registered a non FIR PS case No. 34/2023 under Sections 107 /145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) and forwarded the same to the Executive Magistrate, North Lakhimpur after conducting a local enquiry for initiation of a proceeding under Section 107 /145 of CrPC. 10. The Executive Magistrate registered a Misc Case No. 130/2023 under Sections 107 /145 of CrPC and issued summonses to the petitioners to show cause as to why proceeding under Order 107/145 of CrPC would not be drawn up against them or order be passed. 11. In response, the petitioners filed written statement clarifying that since the year 2009, one of the beels, was in possession of the petitioners pursuant to an oral agreement between the petitioners and actual land owners. 12. 11. In response, the petitioners filed written statement clarifying that since the year 2009, one of the beels, was in possession of the petitioners pursuant to an oral agreement between the petitioners and actual land owners. 12. It is submitted that the land of the actual owners of both the beels comprises of 6 Bighas 2 Kathas 16 Lechas, out of which 2 Bighas 6 Lechas, is pertaining to Dag No. 145 covered by PP No. 2 of Madhupur village under Bihpuria Revenue Circle, and is in the name of Dharmeswar Bora, Upen Bora, Kanak Bora, Kinaram Bora, Neel Bora and Anil Bora. The plot of land ad measuring 1 Bigha 4 Kathas is under Dag No. 146 of AP Patta No. 22, adjacent to the patta land recorded in the name of Late Bapukan Kalita, Late Jaduram Kalita, Late Chandranath Kalita and Late Kamal Kalita, and their legal heirs have submitted their No Objection Certificate before the learned Executive Magistrate and adduced evidence in favour of the petitioners. 13. Through the written statement, it has also been submitted by the petitioners that Sudhakantha Dr. Bhupen Hazarika Meen Palon Committee was constituted in the year 2018, and since then the other parts of the fishery, which consisted of land ad measuring about 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 10 Lechas covered by Dag No. 118 of AP No. 21 is recorded in the name of Golak Chandra Koch, Sisuram Koch, Sonaram Koch and Bhiguram Koch and also some portion of Government land, is being used for cultivation of fishes by executing an agreement with the legal heirs of the original land owners by the Committee. 14. It is further submitted that the learned Executive Magistrate, Lakhimpur called for the report from the concerned Circle Officer and upon receipt of the report and after going through the evidence adduced by both the parties, passed the impugned order dated 09.09.2024. This order is impugned on the grounds that the order dated 09.09.2024 in Misc. 14. It is further submitted that the learned Executive Magistrate, Lakhimpur called for the report from the concerned Circle Officer and upon receipt of the report and after going through the evidence adduced by both the parties, passed the impugned order dated 09.09.2024. This order is impugned on the grounds that the order dated 09.09.2024 in Misc. Case No. 130/2023 has been passed without jurisdiction vested on the Executive Magistrate by law, while observing that “Further, the waterbody/fishery/Beel covered by Dag No. 146 of AP No. 31 of Madhupur village under Bihpuria Mouza, Dag No. 118 of AP No. 21 of Pakodal village under Bihpuria Mouza and Government Dag No. 113 of Pakodal village under Bihpuria Revenue Circle to be placed at the disposal of the Fishery Department, Lakhimpur for maintenance and generation of Revenue in favour of the Government following due procedure until the dispute is resolved among the parties in due course of time.” 15. It is further contended that the learned Executive Magistrate totally ignored the provisions and the ambit of Section 145 of CrPC. It is further averred that without any evidence of breach of peace between the parties, learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed the Misc Case No. 130/2023. However, on the contrary, learned Executive Magistrate made the aforementioned observations. 16. It is further contended that the learned Executive Magistrate ought not to have passed an order for maintenance of the beels at the disposal of the Fishery Department and generation of revenue on flimsy ground of dispute between the parties. The beels were evidently under the possession of the petitioners and the order was passed in a harsh manner ignoring that there are fishes in the beels which are perishable in nature and which are bred and cultivated by the petitioners. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order requires no interference. The petitioners are aggressive by nature and they have been trying to force their way into the area covering the beels for wrongful gain. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have not made the committee of the fishery a party to this proceeding and thereby this petition is not maintainable and ought to be dismissed. 18. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have not made the committee of the fishery a party to this proceeding and thereby this petition is not maintainable and ought to be dismissed. 18. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have brought up a title suit against Sri Dharmeswar Borah, Sri Upen Borah, Sri Kanak Borah, Sri Kinaram Borah, Sri Mulan Borah, Sri Bijoy Borah, Sri Bipin Borah, Sri Nil Borah, Sri Anil Borah and Sri Naren Kalita, who according to the petitioners are the recorded pattadars of a part of the beel as well as the adjacent land comprising of 2 Bighas 1 Katha 6 lechas covered by Dag No. 145 of Patta No. 2 of Madhupur village and have prayed for a decree for declaration that the petitioners are the lawful tenants of the proforma defendants arrayed in the said title suit and are entitled to run the Schedule A beel/fishery without any disturbance from the defendants along with a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the beels. 19. When the prayer for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Lakhimpur in Misc (J) Case No. 27/2024 arising out of Title Suit No. 33/2024; the petitioners approached this Court and CRP(I/O) No. 529/2024 was registered, but the petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2025 as the petitioners had preferred a civil revision petition instead of preferring an appeal against the order of dismissal. 20. It is further submitted that the learned Civil Judge had dismissed the petition with prayer for injunction in connection with Misc (J) Case No. 27/2024 vide order dated 06.12.2024 by holding that :- “7. From the perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioners themselves, it appears that there are allegations of misappropriation of money and fishery against the petitioners which were raised by the opposite parties vide document No. 1. I have also gone through the enquiry report regarding the status report of the fisheries submitted by the Circle Officer to Bihpuria Revenue Circle. 8. I have also gone through the enquiry report regarding the status report of the fisheries submitted by the Circle Officer to Bihpuria Revenue Circle. 8. Considering the documents which consist of the allegations brought forth by the opposite parties before Officer-in-charge, Bihpuria police station as well as the report of the Circle Officer, Bihpuria Revenue Circle, I deem it fit and proper to hear both the parties before disposing of the prayer for temporary injunction. The prayer for ad interim temporary injunction stands rejected.” 21. It is further submitted that as there was a clash between the public and the tenants to use the fishery, there was indeed criminal breach of peace and thus, a matter was brought up by the public under Section 145 of CrPC. 22. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 23. Misc Case No. 130/2023 was brought up by the villagers of No. 2 Pokadol village as the petitioners allegedly tried to force their way in, by muscle power. The petitioners had contested the proceeding by filing written statement, alleging that the villagers on various occasions have come up against them with false complaints tarnishing the reputation of the petitioners. The order impugned is reflected herein below verbatim :- “ORDER Whereas, it has been made to appear before the Court of the undersigned that a dispute is likely to induce breach of peace existed between the 1 st Party and the 2 nd Party, concerning over possession of water bodies in the form of fishery/beel and the aforesaid parties were thereupon duly summoned for appearing in this Court for placing their respective claims and submit written statement as to the fact of actual possession of the disputed waterbody; Whereas, perused the report called from Executive Engineer, Water Resource Departinant, North Lakhimpur vide No. NLWRD/C/322/2023-24/2170, Dated 03/06/2014, which states that the waterbody/fishery/beel may be considered as safe in respect of potential risk to the existing flood control structures if the present status quo of the waterbody/fishery/beel is maintained. Whereas, the CO report received vide Letter No. BC110/2018/392, dated 20/05/2024 wherein it is stated that the disputed waterbody/fishery/Beel is under the management of "Sudhakantha Dr. Bhupen Hazarika Meen Palon Committee” and that the Committee is registered under UDDYAM and verified by General Manager, DICC, Lakhimpur. Whereas, the CO report received vide Letter No. BC110/2018/392, dated 20/05/2024 wherein it is stated that the disputed waterbody/fishery/Beel is under the management of "Sudhakantha Dr. Bhupen Hazarika Meen Palon Committee” and that the Committee is registered under UDDYAM and verified by General Manager, DICC, Lakhimpur. Hence, upon perusal of all relevant documents, evidences, witnesses produced by the parties and based on reports of the EE, WRD, North Lakhimpur and CO, Bihpuria Revenue Circle, the Court is satisfied to conclude that (i) The water body/beel measuring 2B-1K-5L covered by Dag No. 145 of PP No. 2 of Modhupur under Bihpuria Mouza is recorded in the name of (1) Dharmeswar Borah (2) Upen Borah (3) Kanak Borah, S/0 Late Bahadur Borah (4) Kinaram Borah (5) Mulan Borah (6) Bijay Borah (7) Bipin Borah (8) Nil Borah (9) Anil Borah S/0 Late Juram Borah and is currently under the possession of Sri Prasanta Rajkhowa and 2 others. (ii) Further, the waterbody/fishery/Beel covered by Dag No. 146 of AP No. 31 of Madhupur village under Bihpurla Mouza, Govt. Dag No. 143 of Madhupur village under Bihpuria Mouza, Dag No. 118 of AP No. 21 of Pokadol village under Bihpuria Mouza and Govt. Dag No. 113 of Pokadol village under Bihpuria Mouza of Bihpuria Revenue Circle to be placed at the disposal of the Fishery Department, Lakhimpur for maintenance and generation of Revenue in favour of Government following due procedure until the dispute is resolved among the parties in due course of time, The Circle Officer, Bihpuria Revenue Circle is requested to ensure execution of the above order and depute LR Staff as and when requested by the Police Authority for execution of the above order. The O/C Bihpuria Police Station shall take necessary steps for execution of the above order with the help of an LR Staff deputed by the concerned Circle Officer. Further, regarding the ownership of the water body//beel as mentioned above the parties may approach the higher authority/Court to solve the matter. Hence, the case is hereby dropped. Given under the seal and sign of the undersigned on 09/09/2024.” 24. Reverting back to this case, it is held that it is apparent that a dispute relating to the fishery/beel is also pending in the Court of the Civil Judge. Hence, the case is hereby dropped. Given under the seal and sign of the undersigned on 09/09/2024.” 24. Reverting back to this case, it is held that it is apparent that a dispute relating to the fishery/beel is also pending in the Court of the Civil Judge. During the pendency of the proceeding, apprehending breach of peace, an order was passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur. Earlier, a reasoned order was passed by the learned Civil Judge, dismissing the petition with prayer for an order of interim injunction. 25. While the dispute relating to the land and fishery was sub-judiced in the Civil Court, in the meanwhile, the waterbody/beel/fishery in dispute was placed under the disposal of the Fishery Department for maintenance and generation of revenue in favour of the Government following due procedure until the dispute is finally resolved among the parties in due course of time. Regarding the ownership of the water body/beel, the parties were directed by the Executive Magistrate to approach the higher authority/Court to resolve the matter. 26. Although it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the owners of the land are not aggrieved by the petitioners’ possession over the beel, Annexure-F of the I.A.(Crl.) No. 1190/2024 reveals that the petitioners have brought up Title Suit No. 33/2024 against the owners of a part of the beel/fishery with prayer for a decree for declaration that the petitioners being the lawful tenants of the owners of a part of the beel are entitled to run the schedule A beel/fishery without any disturbance from the owners. A decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents, servants etc. from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioners was also prayed for. Thus, it is discernible that the villagers of No. 2 Pokadol village along with the owners of a part of the water body/beel/fishery are not agreeable to the petitioners’ possession over the water body/beel/fishery. 27. It appears that the order of the Magistrate, handing over the fishery at the disposal of the Fishery Department, Lakhimpur for maintenance and generation of revenue in favour of the Government, was uncalled for. A civil suit has already been preferred which may be adjudicated and the rights of the parties to use the fisheries and the beels will be ascertained by the Civil Court. A civil suit has already been preferred which may be adjudicated and the rights of the parties to use the fisheries and the beels will be ascertained by the Civil Court. An order of status-quo or an order, restraining both the parties from entering into the disputed area, would have been an appropriate order without overstepping to an arena to decide on the point of reaping the benefits from the Fisheries at this juncture. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.H. Bhutani Versus Miss J. Desai & Others reported in (1969) SCR 80 wherein it has been held that:- “8. The object of Section 145 , no doubt, is to prevent breach of peace and for that end to provide a speedy remedy by bringing the parties before the court and ascertaining who of them was in actual possession and to maintain status quo until their rights are determined a competent court. The section requires that the Magistrate must be satisfied before initiating proceedings that a dispute, regarding an immoveable property exists and that such dispute is likely to cause breach of peace. But once he is satisfied of these two conditions, the section requires him to pass a preliminary order under sub-section (1) and thereafter to make an enquiry under sub-section (4) and pass a final order under sub-section (6). It is not necessary that at the time of passing the final order the apprehension of breach of peace should continue or exist. The enquiry under Section 145 is limited to the question as to who was in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order irrespective of the rights of the parties. Under the second proviso, the party who is found to have been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next preceding the date of the preliminary order may for the purpose of the enquiry be deemed to have been in possession on the date of that order. The opposite party may of course prove that dispossession took place more than two months next preceding the date of that order and in that case the Magistrate would have to cancel his preliminary order. The opposite party may of course prove that dispossession took place more than two months next preceding the date of that order and in that case the Magistrate would have to cancel his preliminary order. On the other hand, if he is satisfied that dispossession was both forcible and wrongful and took place within the prescribed period, the party dispossessed would be deemed to be in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order and the Magistrate would then proceed to make his final order directing the dispossessor to restore possession and prohibit him from interfering with that possession until the applicant is evicted in due course of law. This is broadly the scheme of Section 145 .” 29. So stating, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Executive Magistrate has overstepped his jurisdiction by passing an order and handing over the Fisheries to the disposal of the Fishery Department. The Fishery Department was not a party to the Lis and the Executive Magistrate cannot overreach by passing such an order beyond his jurisdiction. 30. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and Another reported in (2000) AIR (SCW) 1467 wherein it has been held that :- “12. The question then is whether there is any infirmity in the Order of the S.D.M. discontinuing the proceedings u/s 145 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE . The law on this subject-matter has been settled by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others. In this case it has been held as follows : "When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding u/s 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue." 31. Therefore, in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.H. Bhutani (supra) and Amresh Tiwari (supra), the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in connection with Misc Case No. 130/2023 is hereby set aside and quashed. 32. No order as to costs. 33. Interim order, if any stands vacated. 34. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of.