1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Baluchistan High Court, dated 21-4-1984 rejecting a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta for setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nushki, dated 18-2-1981 whereby he had terminated proceedings initiated by him under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Facts briefly stated are that by an order, dated 8-2-1981 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nushki initiated proceedings under section 145 of the Code and directed the Motbirs of Menghal and Badani tribes to submit their respective claims regarding the disputed suit land, and also passed an order of attachment of property under subsection (4) of section 145 of the Code. It seems that soon afterwards the District Magistrate, Chaghi noticising that the disputed land belonged to the Government took cognizance of the case, and in these proceedings the parties were directed to establish their claim to the disputed land through a suit in the civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. In view of this position the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate felt himself satisfied that the dispute has been set at rest, and he, therefore, did not find it necessary to proceed with the case further, and directed by the order, dated 18-2-1981 that "the proceedings stand dropped."
4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on being moved by the petitioners under section 435/438 of the Code made the reference to the High Court that the proceedings under section 145 were conducted by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a "very irregular manner", and the High Court may pass "a proper order in the case."
5. Learned Judge in the High Court who dealt with the reference noticed from the file of the case that petitioners had themselves stated in their written statement filed by them that there being no dispute relating to the actual physical possession, the proceedings under section 145 of the Code were not competent and the order, dated 8-2-1981 initiating proceedings and attaching the land in dispute is unwarranted and without any legal basis. The petitioners further pointed out "that the fact that on 2-9-1981 the parties in the case have already furnished peace securities there is no apprehension of breach of peace and proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Would not be called for." Learned counsel in the High Court, therefore, held that in substance the petitioners have themselves stated that there was no occasion for starting the proceedings under section 145 of the Code, and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dated 8-2-1981 does not call for interference. On this view of the case, the learned Judge rejected the reference by the Judgment, dated 21-4-1984.
6. After having gone through the record of the case, we find that no exception can be taken with the view that has prevailed in the High Court, for, it was the case of the petitioners themselves that proceedings under section 145 of the Code were not competent and should not have even been initiated in the first instance.
7. Mr. M.A. Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that since the proceedings under section 145 of the Code have been terminated, the order of attachment under subsection (4) of section 145 also should have been vacated. There is however nothing on the file to show that the order of attachment of the disputed property which was passed in the case by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate still survives. In this be the position, then it is open to the petitioners to approach the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned in this behalf. With these observations, the petition is otherwise dismissed.