SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(All) 341

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. P. Shukla
SHAMSHER SINGH-APPLICANT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P - Respondents
Criminal Misc 3937 Of 1981
Decided On : 08/01/1984

Advocates Appeared:
LALJI SAHAI SRIVASTAVA, S.C.Asthna

An order of attachment under Section 146(1) CrPC is an interlocutory order and revision against such an order is barred by Section 397(2) CrPC.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 146(1) - SECTION 397(2) - REVISION - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - ATTACHMENT OF DISPUTED PROPERTY - ORDER UNDER SECTION 146(1) IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - REVISION AGAINST SUCH ORDER IS BARRED BY SECTION 397(2).

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, Shamsher Singh, filed an application under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) claiming exclusive possession over a plot of land. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) passed a preliminary order under Section 145 CrPC and ordered the parties to adduce evidence. After considering the evidence, the SDM found that he could not determine which party was in possession of the land at the time of the preliminary order or two months prior to it. He, therefore, attached the disputed plot under Section 146(1) CrPC until a competent court determined the rights of the parties. The opposite parties challenged this order in revision before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the SDM's order and dropped the proceedings, finding that the land was in joint possession of the parties.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the order of the Sessions Judge was erroneous. It found that the order of attachment under Section 146(1) CrPC was an interlocutory order and that revision against such an order was barred by Section 397(2) CrPC. The High Court restored the SDM's order.

Issues: Whether the order of attachment under Section 146(1) CrPC was an interlocutory order.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the order of attachment under Section 146(1) CrPC was an interlocutory order because it did not finally determine the rights of the parties but was only a temporary measure to preserve the property and prevent a breach of peace. The High Court relied on the definition of an interlocutory order as an order that is not a final determination of the rights of the parties but is made at an intermediate stage of the proceedings to advance the proper decision of the subject matter of the dispute.

Final Decision: The High Court quashed the order of the Sessions Judge and restored the order of the SDM.

R. P. SHUKLA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 482, Cr. P. C. moved by one Shamsher Singh praying to quash the order dated 16/8/1981 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 1981; Ajaib Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh and others. It has further been prayed that the order dated 31/12/1980 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Najibabad in proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code in Case No. 10 of 1981; Shamsher Singh v. Ajaib Singh be restored.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case are that Shams her Singh moved an application under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code claiming his exclusive possession over Khasra plot No. 27; area 27 bighas 13 biaswas and 6 biswansis situate in village Doodhala Dayalwala, Police Station Shyampur, District Bijnor. He apprehended breach of peace at the hands of opposite parties Ajaib Singh, Tarsem Singh, Surendra Singh and Gajjan Singh who too claimed their possession over the same land. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code on 4/12/1979 and ordered the parties to adduce their respective evidence. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after considering the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the two parties was in possession over the disputed plot at the time of the passing of the preliminary order or two months prior to it and, therefore, he attached the disputed plot under section 146 (1) Criminal Procedure Code until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession there of. He passed this order under section 146 (1), Criminal Procedure Code on 31. 12. 1980. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite-parties went in revision and the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor by his order dated 16. 6. 81 set aside the said order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and dropped the proceedings because be found that the land in dispute was in joint possession of the parties.

( 3 ) IT has been urged by counsel for the applicant that in view of the clear cut finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that he could not satisfactorily decide as to which party was in possession over the disputed plot on the date of the preliminary order or two months prior to it, the Second Additional Sessions Judge could not set aside this order by substituting his own finding in regard to the possession over the disputed plot. The above being a finding of fact could not be disturbed in revision. It has further been urged by counsel for the applicant that the order of the Magistrate could not lie revised by the Sessions Judge as it was an interlocutory order.

( 4 ) SECTION 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: The powers of revision conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutor, order passed in an appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

( 5 ) AN interlocutory order is not defined any where in the Code of Criminal. Procedure. However, an interlocutory order is not an order finally determining the rights of the par. ties but an order at intermediate stage of the proceeding for the purpose of advancing the proper decision of the subject matter of dispute.

( 6 ) THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not finally adjudicated the rights of the partes, but has only referred the matter to the civil court for determination of the rights of the parties with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. The main purpose of attachment under section 146 (1), Criminal Procedure Code is two fold; (i) the property should remain intact for the benefit of the right claimant and (ii) breach of peace between the parties may be avoided. The order of attachment under section 146 (1), Criminal Procedure Code is made subsequent to the passing of an order under section 145 (1), Criminal Procedure Code and prior to the final





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top