JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka in Criminal Revision No.19 of 2015 and also the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Dumka in T.R. No.01 of 2014. 3. The brief fact of the case is that a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dumka and the same was transferred to the court of the Executive Magistrate, Dumka vide T.R. No.01 of 2014. Private opposite parties No.2 and 3 who were the first-party in the said proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioners of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition were the second-party. 4. It is the case of the members of the first-party that the first-party including the public have been using the disputed land as a road since 20-25 years prior to institution of the case; as the petitioners herein created obstruction over the said disputed road of 118 feet in length and 10 feet width by constructing three feet pillars, the said proceeding was instituted. A report was called for by the Executive Magistrate from the police. The Officer-in-charge of the Dumka (Town) Police Station submitted a report intimating therein that the disputed road has been used by the members of the first-party to the proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for 20-25 years and the dispute between the parties to the proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was likely to cause breach of peace. The Executive Magistrate considered the materials available in the record and came to the conclusion that the members of the second-party have created an obstruction by constructing three feet pillars over the said road and because of use of the said road for 20-25 years, the members of the first-party have a right of use or easement over the said road, hence, the Executive Magistrate directed the members of the second- party to remove the obstruction over the road which was the subject matter of the said proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, within a fortnight. 5. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Dumka in T.R. No.01 of 2014, the petitioners herein filed Criminal Revision No.19 of 2015 in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka considered that the report submitted by the police goes to show that there is existence of the dispute and likelihood of breach of peace and that the people of the locality including the members of the first-party have been using the 10 feet wide and 118 feet long lane since 25-30 years continuously and by thus considering, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka came to the conclusion that the Executive Magistrate, Dumka has rightly passed the order under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by directing the revisionist to remove the (encroachment) within a period of fortnight. Hence, the same is in accordance with law and dismissed the revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said impugned orders passed by both the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka as well as the Executive Magistrate, Dumka are not sustainable in law as the learned courts below failed to take into consideration that the claim of the members of the first-party over the 10 feet wide lane is wholly mis- conceived and misleading because of recital in the registered Deed of Gift and the sale-deed in favour of the trust. It is next submitted that though the report of the police suggested initiation of a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Executive Magistrate committed mistake by initiating a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is then submitted that the claim of the members of the first-party is based upon right, title and interest which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the power under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that both the learned courts below ought to have come to the conclusion that the members of the first- party failed to establish prima facie right over the disputed lane of 10 feet wide. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 7. It is further submitted that both the learned courts below ought to have come to the conclusion that the members of the first- party failed to establish prima facie right over the disputed lane of 10 feet wide. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and 3 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the scope of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are different. It is next submitted that Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the power to be exercised by the specified authority to prevent disturbance of public order to the tranquility and harmony by taking immediate steps as and when desirable to take such preventive measures but in this case, there was no report of the police regarding any chance of any disturbance of public order rather the report of the police was categorical that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace existed between the parties to the proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the alleged right of use of the lane claimed as an easement and otherwise also by the members of the first party which was registered by the members of the second-party by raising obstruction. Under such circumstances, the Executive Magistrate, Dumka being a superior authority than that of the police officer, certainly, was not bound by the recommendation of the police officer but was expected to apply her own mind and upon application of mind, she has rightly initiated a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, there is no illegality in this case on this score. Hence, there is no illegality in this case on this score. It is further submitted that in the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Dumka, the Executive Magistrate has, in no uncertain manner in hindi, used the word “Avrodh” which in English means “Obstruction” but the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment while referring to the order of the Executive Magistrate instead of using the word “Obstruction” in para-13 has used the word “Encroachment” but such use of word ‘Encroachment’ in no way changes original order of the Executive Magistrate, where the Executive Magistrate being satisfied on the basis of the report of the police regarding the ingredients upon which the order for removal of obstruction can be exercised by virtue of the power vested inter alia upon Executive Magistrate under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; ordered for the same. It is then submitted that nowhere, the Executive Magistrate or the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV has adjudicated the title of the members of the first-party; on the other hand attempt was made by the second-party to put forth the evidence in support of the claim of title of second-party over the disputed land but the proper forum for the same was a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not the Court of Executive Magistrate but for the reason best known to the members of the second-party, who are the petitioners of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, they have not yet approached the Civil Court and if at all, it is the case of the members of the second-party that they have title over the disputed land, it is always open for them to approach the concerned Civil Court but there being no illegality except using the word ‘Encroachment’ instead of using the word ‘Obstruction’ in the impugned judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, at best, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV be modified to the aforesaid extent only but there is no merit in the claim of the petitioners in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition to quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by both the Executive Magistrate, Dumka and the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka as already indicated above. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is needless to mention here that there is no quarrel over the settled principle of law that an Executive Magistrate in exercise of the power under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot decide or adjudicate the title of the party. What all the Executive Magistrate can do under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that, if such Magistrate is satisfied from a report of police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exist regarding any alleged right of user of any land within his local jurisdiction, whether such right is claimed as an easement or otherwise, he can require the parties concerned to such dispute, to attend his Court and put in their written statements of their respective claims and under Section 147 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if it appears to the Executive Magistrate in a proper case, that if such right exists, such Executive Magistrate can order for removal of any obstruction in exercise of such rights. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the Officer-in-charge of Dumka (Town) Police Station submitted a report to the Executive Magistrate, wherein he, in categorical terms, has mentioned that there is a dispute between the parties to the proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is likely to cause breach of peace and the dispute is regarding right of members of the first-party to use the land within the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate; as a road. It was also mentioned in the said report that not only the members of the first- party, but the members of the public were also using that road and in the said report it was also mentioned that the members of the second-party, who are the petitioners before this Court, has raised an obstruction over the said right of way by raising three feet tall pillars. 10. Under such circumstances, the Executive Magistrate having passed order for removal of the obstruction; in the considered opinion of this Court, the same do not suffer from any illegality. 11. 10. Under such circumstances, the Executive Magistrate having passed order for removal of the obstruction; in the considered opinion of this Court, the same do not suffer from any illegality. 11. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the documents put forth by the members of the second-party mainly sale-deed and the gift- deeds were not taken into consideration by the Executive Magistrate is concerned; firstly, it is pertinent to mention here that unless the vendor in case of a sale-deed and donor in case of a gift-deed himself possesses any title, such sale-deed or gift-deed cannot pass on or confer any title to the purchaser or the donee, as the case may be. The sale-deeds and gift-deeds are, without doubt, documents of title. As already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, the Executive Magistrate cannot decide title in a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under such circumstances, as the mandate of law is that the order passed under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a stop gap arrangement, basically for preventing any breach of peace, the primacy of the report of the police officer, is inherent in Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Of course, the same cannot be the whole and the sole basis for consideration; as Section 147 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which mandates, the Executive Magistrate to receive all such evidence as may be produced by the parties to the proceeding, under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to consider the effect of such evidence, to decide whether the right of use of any land exists. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that keeping in view the facts of the case, as discussed above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge- IV, Dumka has not committed any illegality, in not interfering with the order impugned before it, having been passed by the Executive Magistrate, Dumka in T.R. No.01 of 2014 dated 25.03.2015 but as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also concurred by the learned Addl.P.P. as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 in para-13 of the impugned judgment dated 20.02.2020, in Criminal Revision No.19 of 2015, while referring to the order of the Executive Magistrate, Dumka, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka has committed an error by mentioning that the Executive Magistrate has directed to remove the ‘Encroachment’ instead of using the word ‘Obstruction’ as has been categorically mentioned in the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Dumka in T.R. No.01 of 2014. 12. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the Executive Magistrate has committed an error in initiating the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and instead of initiating a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned; as has rightly been pointed out by the learned Addl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, that the recommendation of a police officer to initiate a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not binding upon the Executive Magistrate, an Executive Magistrate is required to apply his own mind upon the police report submitted and to initiate appropriate proceeding. It is needless to mention here that the sine qua non for initiating a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is chance of disturbance of public order, tranquillity and harmony; whereas for initiating a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an existence of a dispute which was likely to cause a breach of peace regarding any alleged right of user in land or water, within the local jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate concerned. The undisputed fact remains that the report of the police does not show any chance of disturbance of public order, tranquillity and harmony rather it showed existence of a dispute likely to cause breach of peace between the parties to the proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding, alleged right of use of the road which is a lane. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the Executive Magistrate, Dumka by initiating a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the essential ingredients for initiating such proceeding was very much available in the record. 13. In view of the discussion made above, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of by substituting the word ‘Encroachment’ used in para-13 of the impugned judgment dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka in Criminal Revision No.19 of 2015 with the word ‘Obstruction’. The same may be read accordingly. 14. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.