Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. None appeared for opposite party No. 2.

2. The revision has been filed by Indramohan Gautam the second party to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 9.3.2012 passed by City Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 24 of 2011 under Sections 145(1) Cr.P.C. issuing notice & under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. issuing order of attachment of the house in question.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the learned Magistrate acted wrongly in passing the impugned order of attachment of the house in question under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. on the same day when he had issued notices to second party under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., fixing 23.3.2012 for objections and disposal, and so the same is wrong on facts & law; that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass impugned order of attachment under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. simultaneously with the passing of order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. inviting objections; that the house in question is being occupied by the revisionist being tenant since the times of his