- (1.) V. N. Mehrotra, J. This is a revision against the order dated 26th February, 1990 by the Special/additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1988 upholding the orders passed by Magistrate concerned dropping the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Pro cedure, but setting aside the order regarding attachment of property under Sec tion 146 (1) Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the present revisionist moved an application before the Magistrate concerned asserting that there was appre hension of breach of peace between the parties relating to the land in dispute as described in the application. The learned Magistrate called police report and on the basis of the same, passed a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C, on 14 10-1985 subsequently, order under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. was passed on 20-10-1986 directing the attachment of the property in dispute. During the pendency of the above-mentioned proceedings, an objec tion was raised on behalf of the second parties, who are Sahadev and Smt. Raj Kumari, regarding the maintainability of the proceedings. It was alleged by them that in respect of the same property, a suit was pending in the competent civil court and due to that reason, parellel proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. should be dropped. The learned Magistrate accepted this contention and by order dated 11-4-1988, dropped the proceedings. However observing that there was apprehension of breach of peace, he directed that the attachment order shall continue.
(3.) IT appears that no revision was filed by the present revisionist against the order passed by the Magistrate concerned, while a revision was filed by the second party against the order dated 11-4-1988 so far as it related to the continuance of the attachment order. The learned Special Additional Session Judge, Fatehpur by his order dated 26-2-1990 allowed the revision and while confirming the order dropping the proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. set aside the order regarding the attachment of the same. In this revision, it has been asserted on behalf of the revisionist that the order by the learned Magistrate dropping the proceedings merely because of the pendency of the civil suit was not correct or legal. It has also been argued that the order by the Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the order of the Magistrate regarding the continuation of the attachment is also illegal and invalid.;