IMPORTANT POINT
Orders passed by Magistrate under Sections 145(1) and 146(1), Cr. P.C. are interlocutory orders and no revision is maintainable against such orders.

Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2001 passed by Sri Brahma Singh, then learned Sessions Judge, Kushinagar in Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2000, Smt. Lakhrani v. State of U.P. and another.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that on 27.9.2000 Maan Babu Dubey moved an application before the Station Officer of Police Station Kuber Nath District Kushinagar with these allegations that he is adopted son of late Laxmi Dubey and a registered deed of adoption was also executed and he inherited entire property of Laxmi Dubey after his death. His Pattidar Aniruddh Dubey was not happy with the above adoption, and had been committing atrocities upon him. He had sown crop of paddy and sugarcane in his plots No. 280 and 27. Aniruddh Dubey and his colleagues Tahir and Majeed were planning to harvest the crop and threatening to kill him. It was, therefore, prayed that suitable action should be taken against them. The Station Officer of Police Station Kuber Nath marked that application to Sri Banarasi Yadav Sub Inspector for investigation and after receipt of report of the Sub Inspector Sri Umashanker Tiwari submitted a report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Kasia District Kushinagar in which he stated that crops of paddy and sugarcane had been sown in the aforesaid two plots and both Maan Babu Dubey and Smt. Lakhrani widow of late Laxmi Dubey are claiming it to be their own property. Maan Babu Dubey claimed himself to be adopted son of Laxmi Dubey and Smt. Lakhrani claimed herself to be widow of Laxmi Dubey and there was tension between both the parties and so it was prayed that action should be taken under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C.

3. On the above report, the learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145, Cr.P.C. on 5.10.2000 mentioning therein that there was likelihood of breach of peace and he directed both Maan Babu Dubey and Smt. Lakhrani to appear in his Court on 16.10.2000 and to produce their written statement in respect of their claim to the disputed crop. He also ordered on 6.11.2000 under Section146, Cr.P.C. for attachment of the crops standing on the aforesaid plots. Aggrieved with that order Smt. Lakhrani filed Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2000 before the Sessions Judge, Kushinagar. The above revision was heard and decided by Sri Brahma Singh, then learned Sessions Judge, Kushinagar vide his judgment dated 7.2.2001. He held therein that since civil suit was pending between the parties, there was no justification for drawing the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. He, therefore, allowed the revision and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved with that order Maan Babu Dubey filed this revision before this Court.

4. Notice of this revision was issued to the State of U.P. O.P. No. 1 as well as to Smt. Lakhrani O.P. No. 2. Smt. Lakhrani put in appearance through Sri K.D. Tiwari, Advocate, but none appeared on her behalf at the time of hearing of arguments in this revision. Hence, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revisionist and of the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State were heard and record of the case was perused and now I am deciding this revision on merits.

5. The learned Counsel for the revisionist first of all submitted before me that preliminary orders passed under Sections 145(1) and 146(1), Cr.P.C. are interlocutory orders and so revision against those orders is not maintainable, and the learned Sessions Judge committed jurisdictional error by entertaining the revision and allowing the same. In support of this contention he cited before me a ruling of this Court in Kallo and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1997(35) ACC 206. In this case also the Magistrate had passed preliminary orders under Sections 145(1) and 146(1), Cr.P.C. and against those orders a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge partly allowed the revision and set aside the attac