IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved & have been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceedings u/ s 145 Cr. P.C. could not be justified.
2. Order u/ss 145 & 146 Cr. P.C. is interlocutory & revision against such order is not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

JR.R. Yadav, J. - It is evident from perusal of the facts of this case that on the basis of order passed under Sec. 146(1) Cr. P.C. by the learned Magistrate on 3.6.1995 the property in dispute was attached on the ground of emergency after passing preliminary order under Sec. 145/11 Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate was satisfied about apprehension of breach of peace, therefore, he proposed to proceed under Sec. 145(1) Cr. P.C.

1-A After service of notice upon respondent Nos. 2 to 11 it was brought to the notice of learned Executive Magistrate that a Regular Suit No. 17/94 is pending before a competent Revenue Court between the parties and in that regular suit the Revenue Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners on 23.9.1994. Irrespective of aforesaid facts brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate by way of raising pecuniary objection he refused to drop the proceeding under Sees. 145(1) and 146(1) of Cr. P.C. and rejected their preliminary objection on 14.7.1995.

2. Aggrieved against the impugned order passed by learned Executive Magistrate on 3.6.1995 and 14.7.1995, the answering respondent Nos. 2 to 11 filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi who after hearing both the parties set aside the orders passed by learned Magistrate on 3.6.1995 as well as order dated 14.7.1995 vide his order dated 23.1.1996.

3. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi on 23.1.1996 the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred before this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the orders impugned.

5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that since preliminary order passed by learned Executive Magistrate under Section 145(1) and order of attachment on ground of emergency passed under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. were interlocutory orders, therefore, the respondent Nos. 2 to 11 have no authority to file a revision before the learned Sessions Judge. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the revision was not entertain able before the learned Sessions Judge.

6. In my considered opinion the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners has substance. I am of the view that there is express bar under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. about filing of revision against an interlocutory order, therefore, the revision was riot maintainable. The learned Sessions Judge has illegally interfered with the interlocutory order dated 3.6.1995 passed by learned Magistrate as he lacks inherent jurisdiction hence the order passed by him on 23.1.1996 is perse illegal, nullity and void ab-intio which deserves to be ignored. Although against interlocutory order filing of revision is barred under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. yet such interlocutory order can be challenged under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and can be interfered in rarest of rare cases by the court provided its judicial conscience is shaken with the order impugned.

7. Now the present criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has to be entertained ignoring the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 23.1.1996 as my judicial conscience is pricking after looking into the facts and circumstances of the case under which the learned Magistrate has passed preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C. and consequential order of attachment on ground of emergency under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners is called upon to argue this criminal misc. petition on merits but he expressed his inability to support the order impugned on merits.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged before me that since he has instructions to file this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. only for quashing of the order passed by learned Sessions Judge on 23.1.1996, therefore, he is not in a position to argue the present criminal misc. petition on merits.

9. It would be pertinent to obs