This criminal revision petition is directed against the order-dated 18.05.2007, for the issuance of appropriate orders and to set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter to be referred as “SDM”). Operative part of the order reads as under:- “In view of the above discussion, evaluating the matter on record, statement of witness in the court, cross examination and arguments made by the counsel for the both the parties, I Vishwendra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vasant Vihar as per the powers conferred to me U/S 145 CrPC hereby decide that the suit property i.e. shop No. 64 of Sarojini Nagar Market was in possession of Sh. S.K. Gandhi prior to initiation of this case and was dispossessed partially from the suit property. Hence possession of Sh. S.K. Gandhi, party no. 1 is hereby restored and party no. 2 i.e. Sh. Jagdish Gandhi and Sh. Pritam Gandhi are evicted from the suit property.”

2. Firstly, I am dealing with the primary objection of the respondents about the maintainability of present revision petition, as per learned counsel for the respondents Revision is only supervisionary in nature and the revisional Court can only set right legal errors or defects but cannot reappraise the evidence. Once the SDM has expressed that he was satisfied about all the aspects contemplated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. after considering all facts and circumstances hence there is no scope for exercising revisionary jurisdiction in this case.

3. Now with regard to the objection raised herein above, this Court under revisionary jurisdiction is fully empowered to ensure that the decision is as per the cannons of criminal jurisprudence and there is no miscarriage of justice, as to check the correctness, legality and impropriety of an order is within the domain of scrutiny in revisional jurisdiction.

4. I, therefore, overrule the primary objection and hold that present revision petition is maintainable.

5. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there are only two legal points involved in this revision petition which need decision by this Court. First is whether one liner preliminary order dated 5.5.2004 passed by SDM directing to register a case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is against the mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of Cr.P.C. as in the same there is no whisper of any apprehension of breach of peace and about his personal satisfaction of the same. SDM has failed to record the reasons for his satisfaction to act under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and second point, which needs decision according to, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned SDM while passing the final order has over-stepped the jurisdiction vested in him. As the scope of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is limited to the extent of ascertaining the dispossession only. Section 145 Cr.P.C. is mainly concerned with possession of the property in dispute on the date of impugned order and dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date and hence SDM had over-stepped in granting exclusive possession of the Shop No. 64 to the respondent No.2 alone and, therefore, order dated 18.5.2007 deserves to be set aside.

.6. It will be seen from the facts as to whether the mandate of Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been followed or not. It is a common case that Shop No. 64, Sarojini Nagar Market was in the name of late Smt. Rukmini Devi, mother of the parties and late Shri Gulshan Gandhi, brother of the parties was

.running a business from this shop as a sole proprietor of M/s. Gulshan Fabrics, Sarojini Nagar till his death on 6.9.2003.

7. Now as per the petitioners” submissions aforesaid Shop remained closed for few days after the death of Gulshan Gandhi. On 18.11.2003, all the three brothers moved into the said property together as late Gulshan Gandhi died intestate and being unmarried had left no heirs and as per family arrangement Shop No. 64 (58 ft long and 13.5 ft. width) was partitioned into three portions. All the t