JUDGMENT K.N. Sinha, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner Krishna Gopal against the respondents No. 3 and 4.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, are that a civil suit No. 240/1994 impending before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Budaun between the respondents No. 3 and 4 on one hand and the petitioner on the other. During the pendency of the civil suit the respondents No. 3 and 4 tried to raise construction over the disputed property, then the petitioner filed an application before the court of Civil Judge, who declined to pass the injunction order.
3. Later on, in the year 2004 respondents no.3 and 4 again tried to interfere, hence the petitioner moved an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 29.6.2004 before the S.D.M. Budaun, wherein a preliminary order was passed on 29.6.2004 and thereafter an order was also passed on 30.6.2004 directing the parties to maintain the status quo. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Budaun, a criminal revision was filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 which was allowed and the order passed by the Magistrate on 30.6.2004 was set aside. Against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the court below and the affidavit filed The paragraph 6 of the affidavit shows that application annexed as Annexure 3 was moved under Section 145, Cr.P.C. before the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate. A preliminary order was passed on 29.6.2004 copy whereof is Annexure 4 on the record. The Magistrate recorded the satisfaction and issued a preliminary order directing the parties to appear on 17.7.2004. It appears that on 30.6.2004 the application (Annexure 3) was moved before the Sub Divisional Magistrate whereupon he passed an order dated 30.6.2004 directing the parties to maintain status quo against which the revision was allowed. The scheme of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is very clear. Once the Magistrate has recorded its satisfaction about the existence of breach of peace concerning the land etc. he shall proceed under various subsections of Section 145 Cr.P.C. and in cases of emergency, he can proceed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. No provision of Section 145 Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to pass any order of the status quo.
5. The Madras High Court in Venkatakrishnan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., has held that in a proceeding Under Section 145, Cr.P.C. Magistrate cannot prohibit both parties from entering on land in dispute without first deciding as to which party is in possession or if unable to decide it, without attaching the property and appointing a receiver under Section 146. It was laid down that order of status quo is apparently without jurisdiction.
6. The order of the Magistrate was against the law, hence the revisional Court has rightly held that the impugned order is certainly an order not within the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Budaun.
7. The writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate shall now proceed according to law.