Jaya Roy, J.-

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite parties. This revision application has been filed by the first party/opposite party against the order dated 2.4.2007 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Daltonganj, Palamau in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2003 setting aside the orders dated 4.7.2003 and the order dated 28.7.2003 passed by the learned Sub-DivIsional Magistrate, Sadar, Daltonganj in Misc. Case No. 297 of 2003 under Sections 145 and 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The short fact, necessary for the present revision application is that on 4.7.2003 the present petitioner who is first party filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Daltonganj for initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. over the lands in question against the second party (opposite party). In the said petition at para-2 the petitioner has stated:-

"That in amicable arrangement arrived at between his co-sharer, the petitioner has/had been exercising his title and possession over the land fully stated in a separate schedule appended hereinbelow at the foot of this petition and forming a part thereon. The same shall hereinafter be referred to as the land in dispute for the sake of convenience and brevity. Besides the land in dispute, the petitioner has other land also but the same is not essential to be mentioned because the dispute does not relate to those lands."

After hearing the first party, the SubDivisional Magistrate initiated a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against the both the parties by order dated 4.7.2003.

3. Thereafter on 16.7.03 the first party petitioner again filed a petition under Section 146 Cr.P.C. stating therein that after initiation of this proceeding the second party/opposite party has become much violent and they are making preparation for disposing the first party from the lands in question and they are trying to take the physical possession over the lands in question. Thus this has created a serious situation and if the suitable action be not taken, the bloodshed may occur at the spot. Therefore, they have prayed to attach the subject matter of the proceeding under Section 146 Cr.P.C. and to appoint a receiver to prevent such bloodshed at the spot.

4. After hearing the matter, the S.D.M. attached the subject matter (lands in question) and appointed the officer-in-charge of Bishrampur Police Station as receiver and directed him to take possession of the same, by his order dated 28.7.2003 under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C.

5. Second party/opposite party filed a revision before the Session Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2003 wherein they have prayed for quashing the aforesaid two orders i.e. 4.7.2003 and 28.7.2003. After hearing both the parties, the 2nd Additional District and Session Judge, Daltonganj allowed the revision application by his order dated 2.4.2007 and set aside aforesaid two orders on the ground that a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated in a case where the parties are in joint possession of the properties and if the same are their joint property.

6. The present petitioner has preferred the instant revision against the aforesaid order as stated earlier. After hearing both the parties in the admission stage I find the present petitioner who is first party, has clearly stated in para 2 of his petition filed for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C which is Annexure-1, that the lands in question are admittedly joint properties of both the parties. It further shows that there is no partition by metes and bounds only the co-sharer are cultivating the land separately for the sake of convenience. It is settled principle of law and decided in numbers of cases that proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in dispute regarding the possession between the co-sharers of joint family unless there is. partition between the co-sharers by metes and bound