The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a full course of proceedings under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. before deciding on attachment under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. The judgment also clarified the conditions for attachment and emphasized the integrated scheme of Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C.

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This Criminal Revision is directed against an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saharanpur, dated 11.06.2018 passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. in Case no.4927 of 2016, Rakesh Goel vs. Sunil Gaba, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. ordering, pending determination of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. between parties, attachment of land hereinafter detailed, to be effected by the Station Officer, Police Station Rampur Maniharan, Saharanpur with a direction to keep the same under attachment till such time that the question of title or possession is decided by a decree or order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

2. Heard Sri B.K. Srivastava, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist, Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Dev Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4. and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Avaneesh Shukla appearing on behalf of the State.

3. The dispute giving rise to the instant revision involves lands comprising Khasra nos.592, 593, 599, 601, 602 and 614 of Village Chidhbana, Pargana, Tehsil and District Saharanpur and Khasra nos.86 and 87, of Village Chunehati Gada, Pargana, Tehsil and District Saharanpur, that are hereinafter referred to as the 'property in dispute'.

4. The revisionist along with six others, to wit, Sushil Kumar Gaba, Praveen Kumar Gaba, Smt. Kavita Mittal, Pradeep Mittal, Shiv Kumar Mittal and Arun Mittal are the second party to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., wherein the order dated 11.06.2018 under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. has been passed, that is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order.

5. The first party to the proceedings, who has invoked jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C., is opposite party no.4 to this revision. The six others, constituting the second party to the proceedings under reference, are non-parties to this revision, as they appear to have not challenged the impugned order.

6. Looking to the scope of these proceedings, this Court does not propose to dilate on facts much. For the purpose of these proceedings, it would suffice that the property in dispute is owned by different private limited companies, that are all represented by the revisionist as Director/ Managing Director, in effective control of each of them, numbering six. These companies are: Consmos Infra Engineering (India) Ltd. having it's registered at 4, Battery Lane, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi – 110054; Chavan Rishi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. it's registered office at 4, Battery Lane, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi – 110054; Ankur Infratech at 4, Battery Lane, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi – 110054; Sunlighat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. it's registered office at 4, Battery Lane, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi – 110054; Sunview Realcon Pvt. Ltd. it's registered office at 4, Battery Lane, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi – 110054; and, Silvercity Infratech Pvt. Ltd. it's registered office at 4, Battery Lane, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi – 110054.

7. The said companies, between the years 2006 to 2008, purchased a total of 37.52 acres of land, bearing Khasra nos.600, 601, 602, 592, 593, 599, 647, 648, 599, 602, 624, 615, 616, 619, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 32, 33, 86 & 87 situate at Villages Chuneti Gada and Chidhbana, Pargana, Tehsil and District Saharanpur, acquiring valid title through lawful conveyances, about which there is no quarrel. The total land, thus, acquired by the six companies, is hereinafter to as the 'holding of the companies'. The property in dispute is a part of the holding of the companies aforesaid, held and controlled by the revisionist.

8. The six companies represented by the revisionist, or so to speak the revisionist, who is in effective control of the same in his directorial capacity, intended to develop the holding of the companies, including the property in dispute, as a residential township. In furtherance of the plan to