21. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred
to the decisions reported in Gopalji Prasad vs. State of Sikkim (1981
CRLJ 60), the celebrated judgment in case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of
India (2015) 5 SCC 1. Since the ratio of those judgments are well settled
and still holds the field, I do not like to discuss them in detail.
In Gopalji Prasad vs. State of Sikkim
and others reported in 1981 CRI.L.J. 60, it was held by
the Sikkim High Court that Section 144 Cr.P.C. must recite
facts from which satisfaction and opinion of the Magistrate
can be inferred and founded. In this particular case, the
order dated 18.11.2019 clearly recorded that the opposite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18197 of 2021 dt.05-05-2022
13/15
party are making construction on the said land as a result
of which there is tension and an untoward incident may
take place and as such he initiated proceedings section 144
Cr.P.C. Thus, the satisfaction and opinion of the Magistrate
can be clearly inferred and founded.
In support of his contention he has relied on
the decisions reported in the case of Dawan Singh & Ors. Vs. Deo
Narain Singh & Ors., reported in AIR(38) 1951 Patna 253 and also in
the case of Gopalji Prasad vs. State of Sikkim, reported in 1981
Cri.L.J. 60.