M.A.A. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) In this case proceedings Under section 145 Cr.PC. were initiated in respect of some garden land, alleged to have vested in the State of Raj. The disputed land, comprised of Khasra No. 95, 96 and 100 is stated to be in the Khatedari of the petitioner Motilal. Any way the learned Executive Magistrate, while registering the case Under section 145,107, 116 (3) Cr.RC. and ordering inquiry Under section 145 (4) Cr.RC. further directed on 4.4.85 for attachment of the suit property Under section 146 (1) Cr.RC. on the ground of apprehension of breach of peace. The said order of attachment was later on vacated as the same had been passed in the absence of the petitioners without hearing them. But after hearing the parties the learned Magistrate appears to have again passed similar order on 10.4. 85 and required the S.H.O. concerned to take possession of and supervise the subject matter of dispute. In that way from time to time orders, dated 10.4.85, 17.4.85 and 26.4.85, came to be passed. The petitioners appear to have challenged all the above mentioned three orders before the revisional court by preferring revision application Nos. 87/91, 88/91 and 89/91.By his impugned order, dated 1.10.94 the learned Sessions Judge dismissed all the three petitions.
(3.) Since the orders, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate on 10.4.85, 17.4.85 and 26.4.85, have already been examined by the revisional court in exercise of his powers under section 397/399 Cr.P.C., the second revision on same facts and for the same relief is barred by the provisions of Section 397(2) Cr.PC. The petition Under section 482 Cr.PC. may no doubt be made even after the revisional court has passed its order Under section 397 Cr.RC. but I do not find any grounds for invoking the inherent powers of this court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There appears to be no miscarriage of justice if the impugned orders are allowed to remain in force and otherwise also there is no abuse of the process of the court.;