BHAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Bhag Singh has filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders Annexure P.2 dated 22.12.1983 passed by the S.D.M., Ropar by which he attached the disputed tubewell under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. and appointed Circle Revenue Officer as Receiver under section 146(2) Cr.P.C. to manage the same and Annexure P.1 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar dated 4.2.1984 dismissing the revision of Bhag Singh petitioner in which he had challenged the order Annexure P.2 passed by the S.D.M., Ropar.

(2.) ON a police report that there was likelihood of breach of peace as the dispute existed about the possession of the land between the petitioner and the respondents, the learned S.D.M. Ropar issued notice to both the parties under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. to attend his Court and put in their respective claims as regards the fact of actual possession of the disputed land. There was also a tubewell installed in this land from which both the parties were claiming right of water to irrigate their lands. Later on, the learned Magistrate after finding that there was likelihood of breach of peace over the use of the tubewell installed in the disputed land and that it was a case of emergency since the sowing season had set in and both the parties wanted to irrigate their lands from the tubewell, attached the tubewell under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. and ordered the appointment of Circle Revenue Officer as Receiver under Section 146(2) Cr.P.C. vide his order dated 22.12.1983. The petitioner aggrieved by this order under section 146(1) (2) Cr.P.C. went up in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar who vide his order dated 4.2.1984 dismissed the revision of the petitioner on the short ground that the order under section 146(1)(2) Cr.P.C. was an interlocutory order and was thus not revisable in view of section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

(3.) IN Amar Nath's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court expressly noticed that under the Code there would necessarily be orders which are interlocutory in nature and thus beyond the arena of revision. Without being exhaustive or attempting to specify the innumerable such orders, they observed illustratively as under :-