OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE dispute relates to shop No. 50 situated at Gangori Bazar, Jaipur. Besides shop in dispute there is another shop No. 48 also situated in the same market. Rather these two shops are on either side of the main gate of the house. Late Shri Ratanlal and Gokulchand Jaipuria, were the real brothers. Though Murarilal, respondent No. 6, contests that shop number 50 did go in partition to Ratanlal and shop No. 48 went to Gokulchand but this fact is not contested by the other parties to this petition. In other words, except Murarilal, one of the sons of Gokulchand, who contests that Late Shri Ratanlal and Gokulchand were the owners of shop No. 50 and 48 respectively and a partition took place in between them, the other parties do not contest it.

(3.) A look at sub-section (5) of Section 145 Cr. P. C. will show that subject to cancellation of order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 Cr. P. C. as provided therein, the order of the learned Magistrate, shall be final. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 145 Cr. P. C. nothing in Section 145 shall preclude, any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed and in such case the Magistrate, shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed but if a party does not take any action under Sub-section (5) of section 145 Cr. P. C. the order of the Magistrate, made under Sub-section (1) section 145 Cr. P. C. shall be final. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that after having made an order under Sub-section (1) of section 145 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate is required to decide whether any and which of the parties was at the date of the order made by him under sub-sec. (1) in possession of the subject of dispute in my opinion, an order under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 145 Cr. P. C. is not an inter-locvtory order within the meaning of section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. and a revision petition shall lie against an order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 Cr. P. C. In a Full Bench decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Brij Lal Chakoo. Vs. Abdul Ahad Nishati (1), it has been held that a preliminary order made under Sub-section (l) of section 145 Cr. P. C. and attachment orders arc not interlocutory order and a revision petition will lie. I am, therefore, of the opinion that a revision petition lies against an order made under Sub-section (1) of section 145 Cr. P. C.