- (1.) V. N. Mehrotra, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 15-11-190 by Shri S. K. Srivastava, Sessions Judge, Saharanpur passed in Criminal Revision No. 527 of 1990 Ashraf Khan v. State of U. P. and another.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the present revisionist Atiq Khan moved an application before the S. D. M. , Deoband asserting that he was the owner of one half of the property as detailed in the application while the opposite party was also the owner to the same extent. He has asserted that the opposite party was damaging the trees existing over a portion of that land and when he tried to intervene the opposite party abused him and also attacked him. THE applicant asserted that there was likelihood of breach of peace relating to the possession over the land in question. The learned Magistrate called report from the police station con cerned and on the basis of that report, passed order under Section 147 (1), Cr. P. C. on 30-8-1990. The learned Magistrate mentioned in that order that on the basis of the police report he was satisfied that there was a dispute bet ween the parties to the proceedings relating to the possession over the land in dispute. He further mentioned that he was also satisfied that there was appre hension of breach of peace. Subsequently on 1-9-1990 the learned Magistrate passed order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. attaching the land in dispute during the pendency of the proceedings on ground that there was imminent danger of breach of peace. The learned Magistrate by order dated 30-8-1993 directed the parties to appear before him and file their written statements. The second party Ashraf Khan filed a revision against the orders passed by the learned Magistrate that revision was allowed by the impugned order dated 15-ll-19yo on the ground that the dispute related to the joint property over which joint possession has been claimed by the first party. In this revision the learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 149 (i) and 146 (1), Cr. P. C. were interlocutor orders and so a revision against those orders was barred under Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the decision in the case of Indra Deo Pandey v. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, 1981 AWC 314 (DB), in which this question was considered in detail. It was held that order passed under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. in proceedings under Section 145 (t), Cr. P. C. was an interlocutory order and no revision was maintainable. This view has been taken by this Court in a number of other decisions also. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has, however, argued that as the matter related to joint property, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was not legal and the learned Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction which he could not exercise in initiating proceedings under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C, It is further argued that as the learned Magistrate had no jurisdic tion to initiate the proceedings a revision could be filed against such an order.;