The main legal point established in the judgment is that the maintainability of revision against the impugned order passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. depends on the facts involved in each case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent and Sri R.P. Pandey assisted by Manoj Mishra, learned AGA for the State.

2. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 30.8.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 2, Ghaziabad in Application 30-kh dated 17.8.2022 filed by the petitioner in Criminal Revision no. 387 of 2022 (Raj Bhati vs. Jage Ram Bhati and another) under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., P.S. Loni Border, District Ghaziabad. By the impugned order learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application 30-kh moved by opposite party no. 1, who is petitioner before this Court, in application 30-kh and opposite party before the Revisional court had challenged the maintainability of revision preferred against the impugned order dated 20.7.2022 passed by learned Magistrate under Section 146 Cr.P.C., while rejecting the application 30-kh learned Revisional court has observed that question of maintainability of revision would be decided with the revision petition. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by Revisional court present petition is filed wherein main ground has been taken that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the law, as question of maintainability of revision may not be decided at the time of disposal of revision and Revisional court is bound to decide the same at the preliminary stage.

3. In application 30-kh, applicant, who is petitioner before this court, has stated that impugned order passed by learned Executive Magistrate on 20.7.2022 in the case under Section 146 Cr.P.C. was an interlocutory order against which revision is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Executive Magistrate has passed the order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 24.11.2020 in which a finding was recorded that there was sufficient ground to proceed in the case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. where dispute of a house lying in an agricultural plot was involved between the parties and the parties were directed to appear before the court alongwith their respective evidence/ clarification. Subsequently, case u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was decided vide order dated 20.7.2022 under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. wherein learned Magistrate has passed an order for attachment of the disputed property in exercise of power vested to him u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C. and SHO, concerned, was directed to appoint a receiver, who will take the property in his custody and keep it under attachment until any party moves regarding ownership or possession with respect to property in question.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Munna Singh @ Shivaji Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2011 (3) JIC 628 (All) (FB) as well as subsequent judgement of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Indramohan Gautam vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2018) 1 ADJ 550.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petition is misconceived and as per law of this Court in the said Full Bench decision, impugned order against which revision is filed by the respondent before the court of Session Judge, cannot be held as an interlocutory order and revision is maintainable against the impugned order passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has cited judgement of Hon'ble Apex court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Uttrakhand and others decided in Criminal Appeal No. 2038 of 2012 arising out of SLP No. 3932 of 20212.

7. I have gone through the various judgements of this Court cited by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. This Court has held in the Full Bench judgement in Munna Singh (supra) the question was referred "where the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 145(1) of the Code are interlocutory order simplicitor and no revision petition u