REVATI RAMAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The applicants have filed this revision aggrieved by an order dated 11-10-2006 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Handia in Case No. 44 of 2006, Gauri Shanker v. Revati Raman and Ors. , under Section 145 Cr. P. C. By the impugned order, the S. D. M. concerned has passed an order under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. for attachment.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionists contended that the Magistrate has committed an illegality by passing the impugned order. He further contended that the there was no justification for the trial Court to pass such an order.

(3.) FROM the bare reading of the said statutory provision, it is clear that if at the time of passing an order under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. or after making the aforesaid order if the Magistrate considers "the case to be one of emergency" or "if he decides that none of the parties was then in possession as is referred to under Section 145" or "if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in possession of the subject of dispute" he can pass an order under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. These three conditions are sine quo non for exercising power under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C.