The Bombay High Court, Goa Bench, quashed an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had remanded a 2012 land dispute case back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for further evidence recording. The Court ruled that the original proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) were not legally valid due to the absence of a preliminary order from the Magistrate, which is mandatory for such cases.

1. Background of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order dated October 15, 2022, by the Additional Sessions Judge, which remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner argued that the dispute, initially brought in 2012, was no longer relevant and should be closed.

2. Arguments Presented:

• Petitioner’s Argument: The impugned order was issued without considering that the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were outdated and should be terminated.
• Respondent No. 1’s Argument: The proceedings were illegal from the start, as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not record any observations about a possible breach of peace before issuing the notice.
• Respondent No. 2’s Argument: The petitioner had never previously challenged the Magistrate's order or the issuance of notice, so the issue should not be raised in the current petition.

3. Court's Observations:

The Court noted that for proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. to be valid, a preliminary order stating the grounds of satisfaction regarding the likelihood of a breach of peace must be issued by the Executive Magistrate. In this case, no such order was passed, rendering the proceedings invalid.

4. Legal Precedents Cited:

The Court referred to the rulings in the cases of Naresh @ Narayan Murlidhar Kabra Vs. State of Maharashtra (2001) and Nilesh Vs. Mahesh (2022), which highlighted that a preliminary order under Section 145(1) is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings.

5. Court’s Decision:

The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge and quashed the proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Court emphasized that the proceedings should not be prolonged, especially when there is no ongoing threat of a breach of peace.

6. Conclusion:

The Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the order, stating that the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the mandatory legal provisions of Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.

7. Final Order:

The Court declared the proceedings closed and made the rule absolute in the terms outlined above.