An order under Section 146(i) of Cr.P.C. is considered an interlocutory order and can only be challenged in revision if specific grounds for interference are demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

1. Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and 3.

3. The petitioners seek remedy of quashing the order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the S.D.M. Bikramganj in connection with Case No. 441 of 2016, by which order of attachment to the disputed land under Section 146(i) of Cr.P.C. 1973 was made and further directions were given to appoint C.O. Suryapura as receiver the C.O. to take the position of the disputed land in his custody and get the land auction sold every year for agricultural purposee. It is also directed that the said collected amount in auction be deposited in treasury with a direction to the S.H.O. Suryapura P.S. to co-operate with the C.O. in compliance of the order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are the second party before the S.D.M. Court in Case No. 441 of 2016 initiated under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. The said case was decided ex-parte and proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was converted into proceeding of Section 145 Cr.P.C. and without hearing them, the order for appointment of receiver under Section 146(i) has also been made. Counsel submits that proceeding in this way by the Court amounts to abuse of process of the Court and hence it requires interference by this Court.

5. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and 3 submits that the land which are in dispute are the joint agricultural property of both the parties. Counsel submits that O.P. No. 2 and 3 are the uncles and the petitioners are the nephews. Counsel submits that the uncles are residing outside the State and they are in service whereas the petitioners who are nephews are residing at village do not want to handover the share of the O.Ps. to them. Admittedly, no partition took place between them. When the second party (petitioners) started creating hurdle, then the first party/O.P. No. 2 and 3 was left with no option but to file a petition to start proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in which the petitioners had not opted to appear. Subsequently, the said proceeding was converted into Section 145. The petitioners have not opted to appear even after notices to them. Every matter was placed before the Court below and the Court thereafter started proceeding under Section 145 and subsequently, directed this property to be attached by the C.O. and ordered to get it auctioned sold and collect the proceeds of the auction into the account so that after resolving the disputes, the said proceeds used to be paid to the competent person.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submit that the O.Ps. are playing foul with the Court because on the one hand they have taken the opted attachment order under Section 146(i) Cr.P.C. as appointed receiver but on the other side also filed partition suit which is partition suit no. 185 of 2016 (Annexure-3 of the present application). Counsel submits that both applications may not run together.

7. On the other hand, counsel for O.P. No. 2 submits that there is no bar in running the proceeding under Section 145 and title suit together because the relief prayed in Section 145 Cr.P.C. and relief prayed in title suit are different. He also submits that it is well settled that in case, a receiver shall be appointed in title suit by the competent Civil Court, then receiver appointed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. shall handover the entire things, documents, proceeds, etc to the receiver appointed by the Civil Court and there is nothing bad in that because Section 146(ii) Proviso (A) are very much clear on this issue.

8. The only legal question which is involved here is that whether the High Court should interfere in the order impugned dated 04.07.2017 passed in Case No. 441 of 2016 by S.D.M. Bikramganj under Section 146(i) Cr.P.C 1973 or not.

9. The answer is the order passed under Section 146(i) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and, therefore, cannot be challenged in revision fo