A person seeking to be impleaded as a party in proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. must show that they are an interested person, meaning that they have a legal or equitable interest in the property in dispute or that they are likely to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings.

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Jaunpur, refusing to implead the revisionist as a party.

2. The facts of this case are very brief. On an application of Jai Prakash (opposity-party No. 10) and report of Station Officer, Police-Station Buxa, district Jaunpur, the Magistrate had passed a preliminary order dated 3rd August, 1988. On 30-8-1988, the revisionist had moved an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that he was owner and in possession over the property. He was away at Bombay to the proceedings under Sec tion 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the-Code) were initiated. The learned Magistrate had dropped the proceedings on 13-9- 1988 on the ground that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. He released the property in favour of opposite-parties 2 and 9. The applica tion of the revisionist for being impleaded was also rejected. It is worth mentioning that opposite-party No. 10 had riled a revision against the order of the Magistrate before the Sessions Judge. It was rejected. The opposite-party No. 10 has filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge passed in the revision.

3. The opposite-party No. 10 has challenged the propriety and legality of the orders of the Magistrate as well as the Session Judge.

4. The opposite-parties 2 to 9 had contested the impleadment applica tion of the revisionist on the ground that he was not at all in possession and had no locus standi to become a party.

5. It was argued from the side of learned counsel for the revisionist that in sub-section (5) of Section 145 of the Code, the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to implead a person. The lower court was only required to see that the person seeking impleadment was an interested person. Since the revisionist was saying that be was owner and in possession of the property, then it was sufficient to indicate that he was interested person. He had come to the court at the earliest opportunity as soon as he came to know about the initia tion of the proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite-parties 2 to 9 urged that simply saying that the revisionist was owner and in possession was not sufficient. The proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code are of summary nature. Ihey are intended to avoid breach of peace in respect of certain property in dispute between the two parties. The revisionist had not shown that there was any apprehension of brsuch of peace between him and the other two parties.

7. The matters involved in the writ petition are different. The point involved in this revision is not involved in the said writ petition. The matter in this case is confined only to this matter whether the revisionist had made out a case as to entitle him to be impleaded as a party, in view of sub-section (5) of Section 145 of the code which runs as under :-

" (5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to attend or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final. "

8. The application moved by the revisionist xlid not indicate as to how he was in possession over the property in dispute. He simply stated that he was in possession over the property in dispute. There was a katchcha house over the site After this kachcha construction fell down, he constructed a shop in which he had carrying on business. It was urged that the opposite-parties in collusion with the police are trying to take possession and had got the property attached. This statement was very vague. No document was attached with the petition supporting the allegations regarding the existence of old house and construction of