SHASHI KANT Vs. SEVENTH ADD DIST JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned counsel for the application. The facts giving rise to these two criminal revisions are with regard to the land recorded in Khata No. 204, Proceedings u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. were initiated by the ,learned Magistrate, on 15.4.1994 by passing the preliminary order and also an order u/s. 146 (1) attaching the land in dispute. Both these orders were challenged in two criminal revisions before the sessions Judge, Meerut. The revisions have been allowed and the orders dated 15.4.1994 and the proceedings under section 145 (1) Cr. P.C. have been set aside. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Judge, the applicant has come to this court.

(2.) The main reason for selling aside the order of the learned Magistrate and for selling aside the proceedings u/s. 145 (1), is that civil suit is pending between the parties for partition, with regard to the property in dispute as original suit no. 658 of 1990, Shashi Kant v. Anil Kumar in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Meerut, Learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that as the suit is pending between the parties they can get appropriate orders with regard to the possession and preservation of property from the same court where the dispute is pending. It has been found proper to continue the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.c. It has also been noticed that before the present proceedings, an application u/s. 145 Cr. P.c. was filed by the present applicant which was rejected by the learned Magistrate by order dated 20.1.1994 on the ground that for the property in dispute a suit for partition is pending. There could not be any justification for passing different order dated 15.4.1994 with regard to the same property. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, has placed reliance in case of Prakash Chandra Sachan v. State of U.P. & Another. I have perused the judgment, and, in my opinion, the view expressed by Honble Supreme Court in the above case cannot be applied in the facts of the present case, as admittedly in partition suit pending before the Civil Court question of title is involved. In view of this the order of learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality.

(3.) The next submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that orders u/s. 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr. P.C. were interlocutory orders and revisions against such orders were not maintainable. Section 397 (2) prohibits revision against the interlocutor.