R.K. Dash, J. - (1.) In the instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 24th February, 1997 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baghpat in a proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and the revisional order dated 5th November, 1997 passed by the XV Additional District Judge, Meerut. It appears from the materials on record that there was a dispute concerning possession of certain land between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for which proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code was initiated. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question belonged to one Sheo Charan, father of respondent No. 3 and he bequeathed the same by a registered Will in his favour. Upon death of the testator, the land devolved upon him and since then he has been in cultivating possession of the same without any hindrance. For cancellation of the deed of Will, respondent No. 3 filed a civil suit, which was dismissed for default. She moved an application for restoration of the suit and the same was also dismissed. She filed another suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in her possession of the disputed land. In the said suit, she moved an application for interim injunction, which upon hearing the parties, was dismissed. She challenged the said order by filing an appeal and the same was also dismissed. Having lost the legal battle in the Civil Court, she took shelter before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by initiating the proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code for the selfsame land. In the said proceedings, learned Magistrate also passed order attaching the disputed land.
(2.) The petitioner moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to recall/vacate the order of attachment. The said application was rejected by the impugned order, Annexure-10. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the Revisional Court and the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the revision mainly on the ground that the impugned order of the Magistrate is interlocutory one. Having lost the case in two Court below, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of both the impugned orders as aforesaid.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the background fact that respondent No. 3 lost the legal battle in the Civil Court, cannot legally maintain the present proceedings before the executive Magistrate for determining the question of possession of the land in question. So, when proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code was not legally maintainable. Learned Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to pass impugned order of attachment.;