( 1. ) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge Ratlam on an application in revision by the complainant in a case before the first class Magistrate. The case itself ended in acquittal but the applicants grievance is in regard to an order passed subsequently, presumably in exercise of inherent power, for maintaining status quo before the starting of the present case to the effect that the complainant should be removed from the house in dispute and the accused persons allowed to re-occupy it. The case raises several important issues regarding the existence and the extent, of inherent power of subordinate criminal courts, the circumstances in which they can be invoked, and the manner of enquiry necessary before any order under inherent jurisdiction can be passed.

( 2. ) THE relevant facts are that the applicant Ramibai gave first information report to the Police alleging that the non-applicants Nathu and Kalu, who are father and son, and their wives, ail entered her house and, after beating her, turned her out, throwing out whatever properties she had kept there. The Police gave a charge-sheet u/s 452 I. P. C. ; the case ended in acquittal, the Magistrates finding being that the complainant was not in possession of the house she has claimed, and was making a false and frivolous charge with a view to getting possession through the criminal Court. As for the criminal Courts are concerned this finding has not been altered in appeal and is still in force.

( 3. ) THE acquittal order was passed on 2-8-1956; on 30-10-1956 Nathu and Kalu applied to the Magistrate that the house referred to in the criminal case was being occupied by the complainant, because during investigation the police has turned them out and installed her. Now that the case had endcd in acquittal and it has been found that the complainant was not originally in possession, she should he removed from the house, and they, the accused persons, who had been acquitted, should now be installed there; thus alone could the status quo ante be restored. The learned Magistrate noticed the police and the complainant (that is the pre-sent applicant), and ordered that the police should go to the house and restore possession to the accused, who are the present non-applicants, after removing the complainant.

( 4. ) THE learned Sessions Judge has made the reference because he was not satisfied, firstly as to the law under which the order has been made, and secondly, whether as a matter of fact, the police did remove the accused persons during the investigation and instal the complainant. Accordingly he has sent this reference suggesting, firstly that Magistrates order should be set aside, an secondly that the case should be sent back with a direction. That an enquiry should be held as to whether the Police had really given the possession of the house to the complainant during the course of investigation. In this court the complainant has supported the first suggestion but has opposed the second, while the opposite party prayed that the Magistrates order should be maintained in toto and the reference foe rejected.

( 5. ) THE first question is whether there is any provision in the Criminal Procedure Code justifying such an order; and if there is none, whether tha Magistrate could pass such an order in exercise of inherent jurisdiction assumed, but not notified, by the Code.

( 6. ) SECTION 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the disposal by the Court of the property produced before it, or in its custody (which I would understand in charge as well ). This section does not speak of movable property only but of property generally, including immovables, though often it would be the former. By "custody" as applied to immovable property, I would understand "charge and control" as it is obviously impossible to bring the immovable property into the Court. It may be in attachment or in charge of the police or a Supratdar, Under Section 517 Cri. P. C. the jurisdiction to d