GIRIDHAR MALAVIYA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and perused the orders dated 27.1.1992 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aliganj, Etah in Case No. 39 of 1991 as also the order dated 19.8.1992 passed in Criminal Revision No. 77 of 1992 by IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah. It is obvious that the land in dispute had been attached u/s. 146 (1) Cr. P.C. Thereafter on 27.1.1992 the impugned order was passed on an application moved by Smt. Jharia and others and their application to release the property from attachment was rejected. Against the said order of 27.1.1992 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate revision was preferred which has been allowed. In the operative portion the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah has observed that proceedings u/s.145 (1) Cr. P.C. and 146 (1) Cr. P.C. were being quashed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has rightly argued that when any such orders passed on the basis that a parallel proceeding in the civil Court in respect of the same property was pending between the parties, the consequential order to release the property in favour of the person from whom the possession was taken should also be passed. However, it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that he being a transferee from one Pahalwan who was one of the parties in the proceedings u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. he would also be deemed to be a party in the said proceedings u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. Coming to the facts giving rise to this revision it appears that a suit for injection was filed by Pahalwan against the respondents which had been decreased by the Courts below and a second appeal against the said degree is pending in the High Court. The applicant before us is alleged to be a transferee from Pahalwan. The contention of the applicant is that the civil proceedings were pending between Pahal wan and the contesting respondents and the applicant being a mere transferees of the property in that civil proceedings, he cannot be treated to be bound by the orders and ORDER passed in the civil proceedings so far as proceedings U/S 145 are concerned this contention is not tenable. The applicant has nearly stepped into the shoes of Pahalwan. In civil courts a case regarding the disputed property was pending between Pahalwan and the contesting respondents and now its second appeal is pending in the High Court. Proceedings u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. were also between Pahalwan and the contesting respondent.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY the revisional court was justified in dropping the proceedings. However it was necessary for the revisional court to have passed a consequential order to the effect that the Magistrate would look into the matter and direct the attached property to be returned to such person from whom the possession apparently has been taken under the garb of the order u/s 146 (1) Criminal Procedure Code.;