T.N. Singh, J.

1. On a reference made by one of us sitting singly the following question has arisen for the decision of this Bench:--

"Whether an order passed by a Magistrate under Sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an interlocutory within the meaning of the expression as used in Sub-section (2) of Section 397, Cr.P.C, 1973."

2. The occasion for this reference is provided by conflicting views of two judges of this Court on the question aforesaid. In Gajadhar v. Harbanshlal Awasthy, short noted in the view taken was that an order passed under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. was an order of interlocutory nature and it was observed as follows :--

"The order by its very nature is temporary and is meant to avert the likelihood of breach of peace. An order of this type does not, in my opinion, decide rights and liabilities of the parties concerning the dispute. It is purely of an interim of temporary nature. In my opinion, therefore, an order of the type is interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code and no revision would therefore lie against such an order."

3. The other view was expressed in Suresh Chandra v. Sitabai 1983 M.P.L