IBNE HASAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been filed by two respective parties leaders claiming themselves to be Mutwallis of the one and the same property which is subject matter of the dispute under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Maunath Bhanjan, Azamgarh.

(2.) It appears that on 25/3/1988, the Station Officer of the said Police Station made detailed report to the Magistrate concerned intimating to him that there is imminent danger of peace concerning the possession of a mosque known as Masjid Ahreak according to Sunni sect and Masjid Rahat Ali according to Shia sect. It was reported that both parties are claiming possession not only over the mosque but also on the adjoining land The report indicated that if proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not immediately taken the two sects will use Criminal force and a serious law and order problem will arise, because Shia sect was claiming title and possession while Sunni sect was also claiming title and possession over the same mosque. Being satisfied with the police report the Magistrate drew proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and on the same day i.e. 25/3/1988, he also passed order under Section 146 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code attaching the disputed property.

(3.) Both parties preferred separate revisions before the Sessions Judge on the ground that since each of them was in rightful possession the other party should not be permitted to get help of the police and get initiated proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code and divest the respective revisionist from rightful possession over the mosque. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, before whom the two revisions came for final hearing, by his order dated 3/6/1988 dismissed the revision holding that the order dated 25/3/1988 initiating proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also passing order for attaching the disputed mosque was an interlocutory - order and revision did not lie in view of the bar created by Section 397, subsection (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence these two applications.