Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.—This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks the following material reliefs:

(A) Quash the orders dated 26.6.2018 and 29.6.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 2 Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 5 of 2017: Smt. Katori Devi v. Kunwar Pankaj Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur District Bareilly, arising out of proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C.

(B) direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pargana and Tehsil Nawabganj, District Bareilly to take the possession of the land in dispute from the opposite party No. 2 and hand it over to Supurdgar. .........”

2. Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel appearing for the High Court, Sri Prabhakar Singh, on behalf of opposite party No. 2, and, Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned A.G.A. alongwith Sri Avanish Shukla, on behalf of State.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2, and, a rejoinder-affidavit in reply to the same, on behalf of the applicant. No return has been filed on behalf of the State, despite time being granted for the purpose vide order dated 31.7.2018.

4. The dispute in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relates to Khasra plot Nos. 14, 201, 565, 1300, 686 and 892, situate in Village Saripur, P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly. The said land is an agricultural holding, and, hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute. According to the applicant, he is the recorded bhumidhar in possession of the property in dispute. It is asserted that the name of the applicant’s grandfather, Todi, was recorded in the basic year Khatauni, relating to the property in dispute.

5. Shorn of unnecessary detail, it would suffice to say that a conflicting claim to title and possession was raised before the Consolidation Authorities by the husband of the second opposite party, that is still pending there. The applicant claims to be in cultivatory possession of the property in dispute, whereas that claim is disputed by the second opposite party.

6. It appears that the Station House Officer, P.S. Faridpur, Bareilly sponsored proceedings to be drawn under Section 145 Cr.P.C., recommending attachment pending proceedings, on ground of emergency to the Magistrate vide his report dated 17.8.2016. On the basis of the said report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur, Bareilly, proceeded to issue a preliminary order dated 1.12.2016 in Case No. T-2016 121311033335/2016, addressed to the first party on one hand, and, to the second party comprising five men, all sons of late Sewa Ram. By the preliminary order aforesaid, both parties were required to appear and put in their written statements on 14.12.2016. By a separate order also dated 1.12.2016, saying that it was a case of an emergency, ordered attachment of the property in dispute and directed the S.H.O., P.S. Faridpur, to proceed to the spot, attach the property in dispute, and, give the same into the custody of a non-partisan Supurdgar, who would maintain accounts relating to income and expenditure relating to it. In compliance with the order of attachment dated 1.12.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the property in dispute was attached by the police and given into the custody of the Village Pradhan vide a memorandum of attachment (and Supurdagi), dated 17.12.2016.

7. Though, the second opposite party was not a party to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., her sons being the second party to those proceedings, she preferred Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2017 from the order dated 1.12.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur to the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. The revision, on assignment, came up for determination before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bareilly, who allowed the same by his order dated 4.2.2017, insofar as it related to the order of attachment dated 1.12.2016 passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., setting aside the said