The main legal point established in the judgment is that ad-interim orders passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not decide the rights of either party finally.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present misc. petition (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2237/2016) filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), arises out of the order dated 10.05.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional Court'), vide which the revision filed by Faiyaj Ali & Ors. was partly allowed and the order dated 26.08.2015, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Makrana (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') was set aside to the extent of appointment of receiver.

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that Station House Officer, Makrana filed an application under Section 145 of the Code before the learned trial Court, inter-alia, stating that in light of the earlier incident of mutual scuffle between the parties involved, there is likelihood of peace and tranquility being disturbed.

3. It was prayed by the Station House Officer, Makrana that the disputed mine No. 49/1A situated in Kalanada, Ulodi range, Makrana be attached and a receiver be appointed to protect the property and to maintain peace and tranquility so also law and order situation.

4. Pursuant to the application, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Makrana, in exercise of powers under Section 145 of the Code, passed an ad-interim order on 12.05.2016, attached the entire mine (being Mine No. 49/1A) in possession and appointed the Station House Officer, Makrana to be a receiver of the property.

5. Faiyaj Ali & Ors. (petitioners in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2237/2016) preferred a revision petition against the above referred interim order, passed by the learned trial Court.

6. The learned revisional Court partly allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned trial Court to the extent of appointment of receiver; the attachment was however maintained.

7. The learned revisional Court apparently allowed the revision petition, considering the claim of the respondents (Mohd. Yusuf & Ors.) that the petitioners (Faiyaj Ali & Ors.) are in possession of half of the contentious mine. Said fact/admission of the respondents (Mohd. Yusuf & Ors.) prevailed over the Court, but since the mining activities had been closed by the mining department, it was thought that there was no need of appointing receiver.

8. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2237/2016 has been filed by Faiyaj Ali & Ors. with a limited grievance that the revisional Court has wrongly recorded them to be in possession of 1/2 of the mine, whereas they were having possession of the entire mine.

9. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 511/2016 has been filed by Mohd. Yusuf and Ors., essentially on the ground that the revision petition filed by the respondents (Faiyaj Ali & Ors.) was not maintainable.

10. So far as maintainability of the revision petition is concerned, the issue is no more res-integra. A Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur in Sitaram v. Ghasiram D.B. Criminal Revision No. 298/1975, dated 06.12.1979 has held that against the interim order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a revision does lie before the District Court.

11. Arguing the revision petition No. 2237/2016, Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.L.R. Vyas, contended that the revisional Court has gone to the extent of recording a finding that the rival parties are in possession of 1/2 share, whereas the factual situation is starkly different. He tried to satisfy the Court that his clients were having possession over the entire mining area.

12. It is contended that the Station House Officer, Makrana, with the connivance of the rival party (Mohd. Yusuf & Ors.) firstly filed an application under Section 145 of the Code and then got the mine attached and receiver appointed so as to get undue advantage or upper hand for the respondents.

13. Mr. Dinesh Godara, learned counsel for the respondents (for Mohd. Yusuf & Ors.), on the