Hon’ble R.K.Rastogi, J.—This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 16.4.1990 passed by Sri K.K.Agarwal, then Ist Addl. Sessions Judge , Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 96 of 1989, Krishan Pal and 156 others Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta and 45 others.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that a report was lodged by constable Siyanand at police station Medical on it atter was enquired by the police of police station Medical and the report was submitted under section 145 Cr.P.C. in which members of first parties were Subhash Chand and 2 others and of second party were Shiv Charan and 72 others . It was alleged in the said report that Khasra plot No. 5730/5/1 belonged to Bhawani Shanker. An area of 3-14-10 was alleged to be in possession of Bhawani Shanker, and on the said land there was residence of Bhawani Shanker. Some other small houses were in possession of the tenants. There was dispute in respect of the land of the plot across the road and so there was apprehension of breach of peace. The S.O. on this report prayed the Court for proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. The preliminary order was passed by he Magistrate on 9.11.1983. The parties filed written statements. Subhash Chand Gupta prayed for attachment of the disputed property under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. Second party filed objection against the application under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. moved by Subhash Chand. The learned Magistrate passed order for attachment of property in dispute vide order dated 9.12.1983. However, the attachment could not be made . In the meantime 2 applications C-24/1 and C-24/5 were moved by some persons alleging therein that they were in actual possession but they were not impleaded as party. They prayed for impleading them as party to the suit. The first party filed objection against the applications of third parties for impleading them on the ground that the said persons had got no locus-standi and the applications were moved in collusion with the second party and the applications were not maintainable. The proceedings thereafter remained pending for a long time and vide order dated 13.12.1988, the learned Magistrate rejected the applications of third parties. Another application for dropping proceedings under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. dated 25.11.1983 was also rejected.

3. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order dated 13.12.1988 the present revision has been fled by the revisionists. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the application for impleadment paper No. C-24/1 and C-24/5 and directed the lower court to implead the applicants (who had moved the applications) as opposite parties in the case. Aggrieved with that judgment and order, Subhash Chand Gupta and his wife Munni Devi filed this revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned A.G.A. None appeared on behalf of other opposite parties though they were represented through counsel.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists made only one submission before me that in the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C the parties whose names find place in the police report or who have been arrayed as opposite parties in the application under section 145 Cr.P.C., are entitled to be heard in the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C., and no other person can be impleaded in such a case.

6. Learned A.G.A., however, refuted this contention and submitted that the court has jurisdiction to implead the parties concerned in such disputes as provided under section 145 Cr.P.C.

7. The question whether those persons who have filed application for being impleaded in the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. should be permitted to to be impleaded as such or not, depends upon interpretation of the words “parties concerned in such dispute” appearing in Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. This question of impleadment of other persons who moved application for their impleadment as partie