JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Krishna Nand Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused persons against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, District Maharajganj in Complaint Case No. 119/123 (State vs. Ram Bhawan and Others) under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Police Station-Chowk, District Maharajganj. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Maharajganj vide impugned order has attached ½ part of the land in dispute Araji No. 550, Ara 0.737 hectare, Araji No. 573, Area 1.753 Hectare, Araji No. 606, Area 1.181 Hectare and Araji No. 454, Area 0.117 Hectare, till disposal of the question of right and title of the parties. He also directed the S.H.O. Chowk to take possession of the plots in dispute and give the entrustment of same to any impartial person who will provide the statement of income and expenditure of the plots before the Court from time to time. Any further proceeding in the case will not be undertaken after the final adjudication of the question of succession of the property of deceased-Shahdeo.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, all the opposite parties, who are collateral of the deceased-Ram Bhavan and the original owner of the property, have filed present revision before this Court under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. Notices were issued to the respondent-first party before the Court of Magistrate and they put in appearance through their counsel and filed counter affidavit on 16.9.2016, which is placed on record.

4. In Gulabchand vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2004) Cri. L.J. 2672, Allahabad High Court held that an order passed by Executive Magistrate, attaching the property under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. when there was totally no material before the Magistrate to record his satisfaction regarding likelihood of breach of peace, being mentioned, is not interlocutory order and revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against such order is maintainable. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid precedent, this revision is maintainable before this Court.

5. Admit.

6. The facts in brief as carved out from the counter and rejoinder affidavits are as follows:

(i) The respondent-Ram Bhawan, who has claimed himself as son of the sole daughter of the deceased-Shahdeo had filed an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Upper Zila Magistrate, Sadar, Maharajganj, wherein it was stated to the effect that there is dispute of possession between him and opposite party-Virendra and others. The S.D.O. concerned reported to learned Executive Magistrate that the plots in dispute were property of deceased Shahdeo, who died long before. He was blessed with a daughter, who had also died. The dispute of succession of said property of Shahdeo is under litigation between Ram Bhawan and collaterals of Shahdeo before different courts. Name of Virendra and others (opposite party-respondents) is recorded in Khatauni and they are in possession over the disputed plots. Proceeding under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. have also been undertaken against both parties. Therefore, with a view to maintain law and order and keeping in view the maintainable litigations between the parties, it is desirable that the disputed property be attached and the question of real heirs of deceased-Shahdeo be adjudicated upon.

(ii) During the course of proceedings under Section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. opposite party- Janardan-present revisionist No. 3 had moved an application before the Court of learned Magistrate stating therein that the plaintiff Ram Bhawan has filed a civil suit for injunction, in which injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs and in this fact of situation and in accordance with law, the present suits are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.

(iii) Learned Magistrate has observed in impugned order dated 30.3.2013 that from the perusal of material on record, it appea