VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and perused the orders dated 27.1.1992 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aliganj, Etah in Case No. 39 of 1991 as also the order dated 19.8.1992 passed in Criminal Revision No. 77 of 1992 by IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah. It is obvious that the land in dispute had been attached u/s. 146 (1) Cr. P.C. Thereafter on 27.1.1992 the impugned order was passed on an application moved by Smt. Jharia and others and their application to release the property from attachment was rejected. Against the said order of 27.1.1992 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate revision was preferred which has been allowed. In the operative portion the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah has observed that proceedings u/s.145 (1) Cr. P.C. and 146 (1) Cr. P.C. were being quashed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has rightly argued that when any such orders passed on the basis that a parallel proceeding in the civil Court in respect of the same property was pending between the parties, the consequential order to release the property in favour of the person from whom the possession was taken should also be passed. However, it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that he being a transferee from one Pahalwan who was one of the parties in the proceedings u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. he would also be deemed to be a party in the said proceedings u/s. 145 Cr. P.C.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY the revisional court was justified in dropping the proceedings. However it was necessary for the revisional court to have passed a consequential order to the effect that the Magistrate would look into the matter and direct the attached property to be returned to such person from whom the possession apparently has been taken under the garb of the order u/s 146 (1) Criminal Procedure Code.