JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTISAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code whereby the judgment and order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Revision No. 68/2021 is put to challenge.

3. The present petitioner approached the Executive Magistrate with an allegation that on 17.08.2021, the respondents have entered illegally in to his land which he had purchased on 25.03.2013. The learned Executive Magistrate asked for a report from police. The report of police claimed that there was every possibility of breach of peace and tranquillity and prescribed drawing up of a proceeding under Section 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. On the basis of the said police report, the learned Executive Magistrate had drawn a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and attached the disputed land under Section 146(i) of the Cr.P.C. The respondents were asked to appear before him and to file written statement.

4. The respondents did not file any written statement before the learned Executive Magistrate, rather, they filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge challenging the said order of the learned Executive Magistrate. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of attachment passed by the learned Executive Magistrate.

5. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the order of the Executive Magistrate passed on 09.09.2022, is an interlocutory order and therefore, no revision lies pursuant to Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Chakraborty has relied upon a decision of this Court that was delivered in Safique Ali vs. Surajan Bibi, (2004) 2 GLR 207. Paragraph 13 of this judgment is quoted as under:

“It is thus clear from Section 397(2) of the Code that no revision lies against an interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. In Ashifaq Premlata’s case (supra) it is held that an order of attachment passed on emergency under section 146(1) of the Code being an interlocutory order, no revision petition shall lie. In that view of the matter there can be no doubt that a revision petition does not lie against an order of attachment passed on emergency under section 146(1) of the Code.”

6. Per contra, Ms. Choudhury that the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 is not an interlocutory order. According to Ms. Choudhrury, the said order is an intermediate order and therefore, revision lies. The learned counsel Ms. Choudhury has relied upon a judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in Munna Singh @ Shivaji Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another. In this judgment, it has been held as under:

“The distinction between the two, interlocutory and intermediary would be that the former does not bring about any consequence of moment and is an aid in the performance of the final Act. It does not affect any existing rights finally or to the disadvantage of either extremes. An intermediate order can touch upon the rights of the parties or be an order of moment so as to affect any of the rival parties by its operation. Such an order affecting the rights of a person or tending to militate against either of the parties even at the subordinate stage can be termed as an intermediate or an intermediary order.”

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.

8. The order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate is based purely on a police report and the said order was passed because of emergency. The respondents were given the opportunity to appear and to contest the said proceeding. But they did not do so and filed a revision petition instead. This Court is of the opinion that the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Executive Magistrate