D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE above criminal revision and the writ petition have been filed challenging the order dated 10-4-1997 of Additional Sessions Judge III, Jaunpur hence both are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE facts essential for disposal of these two cases are that on police report, proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were initiated and preliminary order was passed on 24-1-1997. The second party Shiv Nayak moved an application for attachment of the house and shop under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. on 4-2-1997, this application was allowed and attachment under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. was ordered. Revision was preferred against the order dated 4-2-1997 which was an order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. This revision was partly allowed and partly rejected under the impugned order dated 10-4-1997. The direction has been that attachment of northern and southern shop shall be released and the attachment of remaining property shall remain in force. Revision has been preferred against this order on the ground that the order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. is interlocutory order hence not revisable and the revision is incompetent hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

( 3 ) IN the writ petition the case is that the petitioner Ranjeet is in possession of the property and a civil suit was filed in which the Civil Court passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo and in the face of this injunction order, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed inasmuch as he is in possession of the property. According to the petitioner, the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. as a whole are liable to be quashed so also the order dated 4-2-1997 of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and order dated 10-4-1997 of the revisional Court.

( 4 ) AFFIDAVITS have been exchanged. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. At first the revision is proposed to be taken up.

( 5 ) IN the revision, the first contention has been that an order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. is purely interlocutory and no revision lies against such order. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has been that such an order is not an interlocutory order hence it is revisable. Several cases were cited by both the sides. In my view, in view of the Division Bench of this Court and the pronouncement of the Apex Court and also various decisions of this Court following the Division Bench verdict, there is hardly any scope for the contention that order of attachment under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. is not interlocutory order and is revisable.

( 6 ) IN Inderdeo Pandey v. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, 1981 ACC 16 : (1981 All LJ 687) it has been held that an order made during the pendency of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. of the Code for attaching the property in dispute under Section 145 (1), of the Code is purely interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 379 (2) of the Code. In this Division Bench case, the cases of Amarnath Chawala v. State of Hariyana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 : (1977 Cri LJ 1 891) and Madhu Limay v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 : (1978 Cri LJ 165) were followed.

( 7 ) IN Jagannath Singh Chauhan v. Smt. Shankuntala Singh, 1990 AWC 119 it was held that order of attachment passed under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 (2) of the Code and the revision against such order is not maintainable. In this case also the case of Amarnath Chawala v. State of Haryana and Madhu Limay v. State of Maharashtra (supra) were followed.

( 8 ) IN Vijay Singh v. Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur 1991 ACC 99, it has again been held that order of attachment on the ground of emergency under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order and revision against such revision is barred under Section 397 (1), Cr. P. C. It was, however, further held in this case that final attachment order contains direction to the police to keep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document