LAXMAN Vs. HANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 2-11-1992 passed by S. D. M. Chhata, Mathura in Criminal Case No. 35 of 1992 under Section 145, Cr. P. C. issuing notice under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. It does not appear any order for attaching the subject-matter of dispute was passed.

(2.) A preliminary point was raised that the order in question is an inter locutory order and in view of Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. no revision lies against an interlocutory order. In Indra Deo Pandey v. Bhagwati Din, 1981 ALJ 687 it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that order for attaching property under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. during pendency of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order. In Jai Prakash v. Radhey Shyam Singh, 1987 ALJ 987. It was held that preliminary order under Section 145 (1), of the Code or an order of attachment under Section 146 (1) of the Code and directing the parties to appear on a particular day and lead evidence to prove their respective cases is an order made as a matter of pro cedure and allows the action to go on and nothing has been decided, hence it is certainly not a final order and the revision would not be maintainable in view of Section 397 (2 ). In Shamsher Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1985 Crlj (NOC) 36 also it was held that an order of attachment passed under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies.