- (1.) Chronic disputes relating to immovable property involving claims to lawful possession, founded on complicated facts seeking legal review, often give rise to an apprehension of breach of peace that leads to initiation of steps for maintaining law and order, and preventing unwarranted situations, calling upon the authorities empowered under the Code of Criminal Procedure to take action for attachment and pass orders under the provisions of Sections 145(1) and 146(1) of the Code. Such orders that may affect the rights of the parties, whether can be subject matter of a revision under Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code, is the main issue of reference before this Full Bench.
(2.) To be precise, it would be appropriate to gainfully reproduce the issue framed by the learned Single Judge after having noted the decisions relied upon by either of the parties which is as follows: Whether the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 145(1) and 146(1) of the Code are interlocutory orders simplicitor and No. revision petition under Section 397 or 403 of the Code or petition under Section 482 of the Code is maintainable against the same.
(3.) The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that cases in which such proceedings are drawn have different facts and different implications. It has been further indicated that denial of the revisional jurisdiction to a litigant would be unjustified and for that the learned Single Judge has relied on his own judgment in the case of Gulab Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2004 48 AllCriC 579. While proceeding to make the reference the learned Single Judge however expressed his opinion that the bar of Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code would not apply uniformly and for that the opinions expressed in two Division Benches of this Court in the case of Indra Deo Pandey v. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, 1981 AllCriR 173 and in the case of Sohan Lal Burman v. State of U.P., 1977 CrLJ 1322 were considered, and then referring to the Supreme Court decisions given subsequently, particularly in the case of Ranbir Singh v. Dalbir Singh and Ors., 2002 2 AllCriR 1457, referred this matter for a definite opinion on the law to be laid down by a larger bench. The learned Single Judge held that even orders of temporary nature may have far reaching consequences upon the rights or interest of the aggrieved party, and such a litigant cannot be rendered remediless as this was not the intention of the framers of the statute while creating the bar under Sub-section (2) of Section 397.;