JAGANNATH SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. SHAKUNTALA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionists through the above said revision petition have challenged the preliminary order passed under Section 145 (1) CrPC dated 7-11-83 contained in Annexure-5 as well as the interim order dated 8-11-83 passed under Section 146 (1) CrPC.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has very clearly stated that since the specific provisions of Section 397 and 401 CrPC are applicable he is pressing this petition under these specific provisions, namely, under Section 397/401 CrPC and it is to be treated as revision petition only.

(3.) A report was called for by the City Magistrate, Rae Bareli. The police gave its report dated 7-11-83 contained in Annexure No. 4. It was to this effect that there was dispute about the possession, the revisionists asserted their possession, wanted to stop the ladies from entering into the Club and there was apprehension of breach of peace. According to the petitioners themselves, on 8-11-83 a complaint was moved by the Opposite Party before the District Magistrate Rae Bareli in respect of the dispute regarding the same property. The City Magistrate to whom it was forwarded for necessary action, called for police report on 8-11-83 On the same date the police submitted the report reiterating that there was apprehension of breach of peace so far as the parties were concerned On the same date, that is, 8-11-83 two witnesses Badri and Habib were also examined in connection with the dispute and apprehension of breach of peace, revisionists have challenged the report of the police as well as the statement of the witnesses Badri and Habib- On 7-11-83 the City Magistrate on being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace existed concerning the building situated in Plot No. 11, passed preliminary order under Section 145 (1) CrPC contained in Annexure-5. Both the parties were ordered to file their written statements by 11-11-83. Thereafter on 8- 11-83 the City Magistrate Rae Bareli passed another order which was under Section 146(1) CrPC contained in Annexure-6. It mentions inter alia that after looking into the police report dated 8-11-83 as well as the statement of the witnesses (referred to above), he was satisfied that there existed emergency in respect of the disputed property and therefore, it was necessary to pass order for attachment in respect of the same property under Section 146 (1) CrPC. Accordingly, order for attachment of the property in dispute was passed by the Magistrate on 8-11-83 contained in Annexure-6.