- (1.) Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicants in revision. This revision is directed against the order dated 15.5.2001 passed by revisional court setting aside the order dated 5.10.2001 made under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. and the order dated 17.2.2001 made under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. attaching the property in dispute. The dispute relates to a few agricultural plots whose details are given in the police challani report dated 25.8.2000. Parties to the proceedings are inter related as per the following pedigree -Ram Naresh Ram Nihore Ram Murat Uma Nath Kshma Nath Ram Asrey Ram Sahai (Applicant No. 1) (Applicant No.2) (Opp.Party No.3) (Opp.Party No.4)
(2.) Ram Naresh was undisputedly the recorded tenure-holder of the disputed plots. After his death, dispute arose between the parties with regard to the holding left by Ram Naresh so much so that the dispute led to some murders and other criminal incidents. On 25.8.2000 police submitted a report before Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jaunpur stating that there was a dispute between the parties in relation to the plots in question. After the first party (applicants in revision) succeeded in getting the ex-parte order of mutation set aside, which was in favour of opposite parties, a few incidents including murders have occurred. The first party i.e. applicants are history sheeters and hardened criminals and they could commit any serious crime. Therefore, a prayer was made that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. be drawn and property attached and given in custody of an independent person. On 5.10.2000, the Magistrate passed preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. and thereafter on 17.2.2001 passed order of attachment under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. The validity of these orders was challenged by opposite parties in criminal revision No. 182 of 2001 before Sessions Judge on the ground of their being without jurisdiction, null and void. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order has set aside both the orders of the Magistrate and quashed the proceedings.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants in revision in a very emphatic manner submitted before this court that the revision filed before the Sessions Judge was not maintainable on account of the statutory bar contained in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. as both the orders of the Magistrate made under Sections 145(1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C. were interlocutory orders, therefore, the order of the Sessions Judge allowing the revision is liable to be set aside.;