IMPORTANT POINT
Court while dealing with a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. is mainly concerned with possession of property in dispute on the date of preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date.

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal filed by the first party in the proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C. ) is directed against the judgment dated 16.07.2001 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 540 of 2000. The Revision Petition was filed by the second party, who is respondent No. 1 herein, under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 14.11.2000 passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. attaching the land in dispute. The High Court allowed the Revision Petition and quashed the preliminary order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145(1) as well as the order of attachment of the land under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus :

"This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that impugned orders under Section 145(1) of the Code as well as proceedings under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. were an abuse of the process of law and as such cannot be sustained. The orders passed by learned SDM under Section 145(1) dated 11.7.2000 as well as Section 146(1) dated 14.11.2000 are therefore quashed. The learned SDM is directed to restore the possession of the land to the petitioner within 10 days as he was in possession thereof at the time of the attachment. The Trial Court file be sent back immediately."

3. The factual matrix of the case over which there is no dispute between the parties may be stated thus :

Dalbir Singh, respondent No.1 herein, is the owner of the land in dispute measuring about 40 bighas and 16 biswas situated in Mouza Chattarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. He had given a registered Power of Attorney in favour of his son-in-law, Karnail Singh in July, 1991. Karnail Singh had executed sale deeds transferring the land in favour of M/s. Homestead on account of which disputes arose between respondent No. 1 on one side and Karnail Singh and M/s. Homestead, on the other side. Respondent No.1 filed the suit, Original Suit No. 2830/91 (renumbered as 389/93) seeking a decree of permanent injunction against Karnail Singh and M/s. Homestead. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn by the order of the trial Court dated 29.4.1994. The order was passed on the statement made by the parties that they had amicably settled the dispute relating to the suit property. Thereafter, M/s. Homestead transferred the land in dispute in favour of Ranbir Singh, the appellant herein, under the registered sale deed dated 20.8.1996. The property was mutated in the name of the purchaser. Subsequently, on a petition filed by respondent No.1 on 18.10.1996 the order dismissing the suit as withdrawn was recalled and suit No.2830/91 (renumbered as 389/92) was restored to file. The said order having not been challenged by any party has attained finality.

4. On 23.6.1997, the appellant filed the suit, O.S.No.300/97 praying for a decree of permanent injunction against respondent No.1. On the same day, an order of ad interim injunction was passed in the suit. As the matter stood thus the appellant filed the petition dated 17.9.1997 before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 145, alleging inter alia that immediately after the order of interim injunction was passed by the Civil Court, respondent No. 1 and his supporters forcibly dispossessed him (the appellant); in the circumstances, there was an apprehension of breach of peace. About three years after filing of the said petition, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C. on 11.7.2000. This was followed by the order dated 14.11.2000 in which considering the application filed by the first party (appellant) under Section 146(1), the land in dispute was attached and the local S.D.P.O. was given charge of the property. The respondent No.1 filed an application on 15.11.2000 praying for recall/modification of the prelimina