The discretionary nature of orders under Section 146(1) CrPC and their classification as interlocutory orders not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ahmed Hussain Laskar.

2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short), read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 26.09.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar, in connection with Criminal Revision No. 106 of 2022.

3. The respondent No. 2 failed to appear on successive consecutive dates.

4. The respondent No. 1 is represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr M P Goswami.

5. The genesis of the case was that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 145/146(1) of the CrPC, before the Court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar (ADM, for short), alleging inter alia, that the petitioner inherited the parcel of land mentioned in the schedule of the petition (DL, for short) and was in peaceful possession of the said land. The respondent No. 2, without any possessory rights tried to encroach over the DL. On 19.08.2022, at about 10/10:30 AM, the respondent No. 2, along with other miscreants, armed with deadly weapons tried to encroach over the DL and collected bricks, sand, stones for construction of a PMAY house, allotted by the Government to the respondent No. 2’s husband. When the petitioner along with his brother tried to resist, the respondent No. 2 and the other miscreants verbally abused and threatened them with dire consequences. Apprehending breach of peace and public tranquility, a petition under Section 145/146(1) CrPC was filed before the learned ADM, Cachar, Silchar and Case No. 679M of 2022 was registered and vide order dated 14.09.2022, passed by the learned ADM, the DL was attached under Section 146(1) of the CrPC, restraining both the parties from entering into the DL, until further order(s). The order dated 14.09.2022 is reflected hereinbelow verbatim-

ORDER

14/09/2022-

Case record is received and transfer in my file. Perused the Complt. Petition supported with affidavits along with Police report Xerox copy of documents filed by Md. Ahmed Hussain Laskar,S/O Lt. Taimuz Laskar of Neirgram Pt-II, PS Silchar, Dt-Cachar, Assam against 1. Roushnara Begum Laskar, W/O Momiz Uddin Laskar of Neirgram Pt-II, PS Silchar, Dt-Cachar, Assam.

Heard the Id. lawyer for the 1" party petitioners at length.

On perusal of police report and on hearing the submission made by the Id. lawyer for the 1st party, I am of the opinion that the dispute between the land of both parties in respect of possession of the D/L which may lead to serious apprehension of breach of peace and public tranquility in the locality.

Therefore, I am satisfied to draw up a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. and ask both the parties to file W/S in respect of claims over the D/L on the next date fixed which is also fixed for hearing.

Further, to contain any immediate threat to public peace and tranquility, I do hereby attach the D/L U/S 146(1) Cr.P.C. and restrain both the parties from entering into the D/L until further orders. Considering the emergent situation this order is passed ex-parte.

Ask local police to execute the order and maintain peace in the locality. Date fixed:13/10/2022 for W/s by both parties.

6. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent No. 2 preferred a revision, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 106 of 2023 and vide order dated 26.09.2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) was pleased to set aside the order of attachment under Section 146 (1) CrPC, observing that the learned ADM shall continue with the proceeding and was at liberty to pass any order as per law based on the materials available before it, including attachment of the DL based on fresh Police report, if considered necessary..

7. This order is under challenge before this Court.

8. The petitioner is speculating that there will be breach of peace and public tranquility and the respondent No. 2 may not hesitate from