NARENDRA NATH VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIJAY Kumar Verma, J. Challenge in this revision is to the judgment and order dated 21-4-2005 passed by Sri D. K. Tyagi, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Ghazipur, in Criminal Revision No. 458 of 2004, Ravindra Nath Vishwakarma v. State of U. P. and Anr. , whereby allowing the revision, the order dated 1-11-2004 passed by the S. D. M. Sadar, Ghazipur, under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. has been set aside.

(2.) THE relevant facts as emerging from the record are that Narendra Nath Vishwakarma had moved an application in the Court of S. D. M. Sadar, Ghazipur to initiate the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in respect of the house situated in Mohallah Saklenabad, P. S. Kotwali, District Ghazipur. On that application, a report was submitted by S. H. O. P. S. Kotwali, Ghazipur on 26-7-2004, in which it was stated that Sri Krish Murari Vishwakarma and Sri Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma r/o village Pasidih alias Bikapur, Paragana and District Ghazipur, presently residing at Maru chak pasi Line District Bhagalpur (Bihar), were the owners of the house situated in Mohallah Saklenabad, P. S. Kotwali. District Ghazipur. THEy had executed a Mukhtarnama on 14-6-1995 regarding that house in favour of Nagendra Nath Vishwakarma, but in contravention of that Mukhtarnama, Ravindra Nath Vishwakarma has illegally occupied the house, due to which there is tension between the parties. Being satisfied with the report of S. H. O. , P. S. Kotwali, Ghazipur, the S. D. M. Sadar, Ghazipur, passed preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. on 1-11-2004 in Case No. 26 of 2004 and issued notice to the parties to appear in his Court and file documents in respect of ownership and possession over the disputed house by 19-11-2004. On the same date viz. 1-11-2004, an order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. was also passed by the learned S. D. M. , whereby the disputed house was attached and S. H. O. P. S. Kotwali was directed to give the house in the supurdagi of some neutral person. Feeling aggrieved by the order of attachment of the disputed house, Ravindra Nath Vishwakarma (opposite party No. 2 herein) preferred Criminal Revision No. 458 of 2004, which has been allowed vide impugned judgment dated 21-4-2005, hence this revision.

(3.) ON the contrary, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that rights of the parties are seriously affected by making attachment under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C, hence the order of attachment, which comes in the category of intermediate orders, can be challenged in revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C.