Kanta Bhatnagar, J. - (1.) PROCEEDINGS under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated by Gauri Shanker non -petitioner No. 2 in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Parbatsar on May 29, 1978. The preliminary order was drawn by the learned Magistrate on the same date. On the application filed under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. by Gauri Shanker ad interim order for the attachment of the property in dispute was passed. Notices were issued to Durga Prasad (petitioner here). He filed the reply and prayed for dropping of the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC and vacating the ad interim order for attachment. Both the parties filed affidavits of a number of persons. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on bearing the parties and pet using the material on record, concluded that there was imminent danger of breach of peace with regard to the property in dispute. He, therefore, confirmed the ad interim order for attachment dated May 29, 1978 on June 19, 1978 and fixed June 29, 1978 as the next date for proceeding in the matter.
(2.) MR . Mridul Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner Durga Prasad strenuously contended that affidavits filed on behalf of both the parties do not suggest that there was any such emergent situation that an order for attachment should have been passed. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has discussed in detail the affidavits filed by both the sides and the circumstances of the case which has created an apprehension for breach of peace. The contentions of the parties and the situation in which the property was, led the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to the conclusion that attachment of the property during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. was necessary and in my opinion he has rightly refused to vacate the order for attachment He has rightly held that simply by passing this order Court does not become functus officio and that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. shall continue. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar based on sound reasonings.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition is dismissed. The record of the case, received from the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar may be returned immediately.;