ASHWANI KUMAR TIWARI Vs. PRITHAVI NATH TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. Grievance of the revisionists is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 146 (1), Cr PC attaching the disputed property is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the revision is barred under Section 397 (2), Cr PC. It has been stated that the Magistrate passed an order on 16-11-1992 on a proceeding started at the instance of SHO of police station. By an order, dated 2-2-1993 the learned Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra has decided the revision on merits and found that the said order was a final order decided on merits and hence the revision riled by the opposite parties was in order.

(2.) LEARNED counsel has referred the impugned order, dated 16-12-1992 passed by the Magistrate and stated that in the body of the order it has been mentioned that the said order was passed under Section 146 (1), Cr PC. He has referred certain decisions, including one Division Bench decision reported in 1981 SCC 314 Indra Deo Pandey v. Smtt Bhagwati Devi wherein it was held that the order for attachment of property under Section 146 (1) of the Code made during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 is an order purely of an intermediate or temporary nature. It neither decides for purports to effect any legal right of any of the parties. The order is made for the purposes of effective adjudication of proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code. It does not result in the disposal of any part of the controversy between the parties or the proceedings under Section 145. In such a case no question of proceedings being concluded one way or the other if the plea of one party or the other is accepted antes.