Arvind K.Tripathi - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A., counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 and perused the record.
(2.) THE present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 16.9.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 269/2004 between, Smt. Trara Begum and others v. Smt. Amna and others, under Section 145/146 (1), Cr. P.C. by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by opposite party against interlocutory order passed under Section 146 (1), Cr. P.C. in proceeding of Section 145, Cr. P.C. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the S.D.M. found that there was apprehension of breach of peace on the spot due to the disputed shop and house hence the order of attachment was passed under Section 146 (1), Cr. P.C. on 17.6.2004. Against that order a revision was preferred by the contesting opposite party which was not maintainable since the order was interlocutory order. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Revti Raman and others v. State of U. P. and others, 2007 (3) ACR 2987 and Narendra Nath Vishwakarma v. State of U. P. and another, 2007 (2) JIC 791 (HC All) in support of his case. The revisional court has mentioned in the order that the order of attachment was passed after hearing of both the parties but from perusal of the order of Deputy Collector, Aliganj dated 17.6.2004, it appears that the order was passed without hearing the other party. The order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P.C. has to be passed in case of emergency, which can be withdrawn or modified at any stage during pendency of the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C.
(3.) IN view of the fact, the order was passed under Section 146 (1), Cr. P.C., on 17.6.2004 was interlocutory order. The opposite party has right to move application and place their case before the S.D.M. to recall or modify the order. Hence, in view of the fact, the revision was not maintainable against the order of the S.D.M. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed. The order of the revisional court dated 16.9.2004 is set aside. The S.D.M. is directed to conclude the proceeding expeditiously in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties.;