KALLOO Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above criminal revision and the writ petition have been filed challenging the order dated 10-4-1997 of Additional Sessions Judge III, Jaunpur hence both are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The facts essential for disposal of these two cases are that on police report, proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated and preliminary order was passed on 24-1-1997. The second party Shiv Nayak moved an application for attachment of the house and shop under Section 146 (1), Cr.P.C. on 4-2-1997, this application was allowed and attachment under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. was ordered. Revision was preferred against the order dated 4-2-1997 which was an order under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. This revision was partly allowed and partly rejected under the impugned order dated 10-4-1997. The direction has been that attachment of northern and southern shop shall be released and the attachment of remaining property shall remain in force. Revision has been preferred against this order on the ground that the order under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. is interlocutory order hence not revisable and the revision is incompetent hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) In the writ petition the case is that the petitioner Ranjeet is in possession of the property and a civil suit was filed in which the Civil Court passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo and in the face of this injunction order, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed inasmuch as he is in possession of the property. According to the petitioner, the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. as a whole are liable to be quashed so also the order dated 4-2-1997 of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and order dated 10-4-1997 of the revisional Court.