P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) This, is a reference by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, dated 3 -8 -1971 for quashing the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Saidpur, in proceedings Under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sheopujan Vaid filed an application in the court of the Magistrate on 22 -10 - 1969 for initiating proceedings against the opposite -parties Under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was alleged by Sheopujan Vaid that the plot in dispute was in his possession and crops thereon had also been sown by him. The opposite -parties were trying to interfere with his possession. There was an apprehension of breach of peace. It was, therefore, prayed that action Under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken. The Magistrate called for a report from the police which was submitted on 3 -11 -1969. Being satisfied therefrom as to the existence of breach of peace the Magistrate passed a preliminary order Under Sec. 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure attaching the plot in dispute and calling upon the parties to file their written statements and affidavits in support of their respective claims. The opposite -parties Pancham Das and Mahant Vishwanath Das filed their written statements. Each of them claimed to be in possession of the disputed plot. The Magistrate was unable to decide the question of possession. He therefore, made a reference to the civil court Under Sec. 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Munsif by his order dated 24 -2 -1971 decided that Pancham Das was in actual possession of the disputed plot and the crops standing thereon on the relevant dates. On receipt of this finding by the civil court the Magistrate decided the case in conformity with the aforesaid finding by his order dated 20 -3 -1971. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate Saidpur directed the release of the attached plot in favour of Pancham Das and restrained Vishwanath Das and Sheopujan Vaid from interfering with the peaceful possession of Pancham Das over the plot in question till he was evicted therefrom by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order Mahant Vishwanath Das filed a revision before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, in which he impleaded Pancham Das and Sheopujan Vaid as the opposite -parties. The 1st Addl. Sessions Judge has made a reference to this Court for quashing the impugned order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. I am not inclined to accept this reference. The view expressed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge in the referring order is that in the circumstances of the present case it was obligatory upon the Magistrate to have followed the procedure prescribed Under Sec. 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court below stated that Sheopujan Vaid has sworn in paragraph 2 of his affidavit that there was no apprehension of breach of peace and as such "these averments go to show that the parties had challenged the existence of an apprehension of breach of peace regarding possession of the disputed plot." In his view, therefore, the Magistrate should have decided this question first and his failure to do so is a jurisdictional error which has vitiated the entire subsequent proceedings including the reference to the civil court and the decision arrived at by the Magistrate thereon.
(3.) At this stage it would be relevant to quote Sec. 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It runs as follows: (5) Nothing in this Sec. shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate Under Sub -section (1) shall be final. In the case before us it is obvious from a perusal of the record that Sheopujan Vaid who filed the application Under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claimed to be in possession of the land in dispute along with the crops standing thereon. The opposite -parties Pancham Das and Mahant Vishwanath also claimed to be in exclusive possession of the plot in dispute. None of these parties made any allegation in their written statements that there was no apprehension of a breach of peace. Hence it is obvious that Sub -section (5) of Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not attracted in so far as the parties to this proceedings were concerned. The question for decision is whether an affidavit filed by a witness in support of the claim of one of the parties in which he denies the existence of an apprehension of breach of peace amounts to denial by "any other persons interested" as Lald down in Sub -section (5) of Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have already mentioned above that Pancham Das, opposite -party, claimed to be in possession of the plot in dispute along with the crops standing thereon. He filed an affidavit of one Sheo Das in support of his possession. Sheo Das in paragraph 3 of his affidavit has very clearly stated that Pancham Das was in possession of the land in dispute and he had sown his crops thereon. It is thus obvious that Sheo Das is not claiming any interest in the land in dispute personally. He is only supporting the claim of Pancham Das. It is true that in paragraph 2 of his affidavit he has stated that there was no apprehension of breach of peace, but, not being himself interested in the subject matter of the dispute it cannot be said that the averments made in paragraph 2 of the affidavit amounted to a denial of the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace by a person interested. In my opinion, therefore, the affidavit filed by Shiv Das in support of the claim of Pancham Das cannot be construed to raise an independent question regarding the existence or otherwise of an apprehension of breach of peace which would call for a decision by a Magistrate under the provisions of Sec. 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sheo Das was not a person interested and in my view the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge has fallen in error by holding that in the circumstances of the present case it was obligatory upon the Magistrate to have proceeded Under Sec. 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Magistrate on being satisfied from a perusal of the report etc. as to the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace concerning land has to make an order in writing stating the grounds of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to put in written statements of their respective claims with respect to the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. The expression "the parties concerned" in such dispute has been the subject matter of judicial interpretation. In Hari Ram v/s. Banwari, 1967 P&H 378 it was held that the expression "parties concerned in such dispute used in Sec. 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure means all persons claiming to be in possession at the time of the initial order Under Sec. 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec. 145 Sub -section (5) provides an opportunity to any party to such dispute to show cause that no such dispute exists or has existed and if he succeeds the Magistrate has to cancel his preliminary order. Sec. 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure also gives the right to an outsider to the proceedings if he is a "person interested" also to apply to the court for cancelling the preliminary order on the ground of nonexistence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace. Needless to say that the expression no such dispute used in Sub -section (5) of Sec. 145 refers to a dispute regarding the actual factum of possession of the land which is the subject matter of the preliminary order in proceedings Under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While interpreting the expression other "person interested" mentioned in Sub -section (5), we have to bear in mind the interpretation of the expression parties concerned used in Sub -section (1) of Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a most natural and genuine principle of exposition of statute to construe one part of the statute by a reference to another part of the same statute. Just as "parties concerned" are required to prove their actual possession of the subject matter of dispute similarly "persons interested" would, refer to that category of persons who also claim possession of the land in dispute on the date of the preliminary order. A stranger who applies to the court for cancellation of the preliminary order Under Sec. 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also to show that he is in peaceful possession of the subject matter of dispute and that no apprehension of breach of peace either exists or has existed which would justify a continuance of the proceedings Under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my view, therefore, a witness who files an affidavit supporting the claim of possession of a party to the proceedings Under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without himself claiming possession thereof is not a person interested within the meaning of Sec. 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the denial by him of the existence of an apprehension of breach of peace with respect to the subject matter in dispute does not call for an enquiry Under Sec. 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequent cancellation of those proceedings.;