Criminal - Jurisdiction - Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Whether, order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate was within jurisdiction - Held, jurisdiction of Magistrate to deal with application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was not taken away only because in meantime Civil Court had passed an order of injunction in favour of party - Sub-Divisional Magistrate could came to his own conclusion as to which of two parties was in possession of disputed property on date of preliminary order or within two months thereof - However where Receiver was appointed by Magistrate after attaching property, possibility of unsuccessful party in whose favour there was an order of injunction claiming that property was attached from its possession could not be ruled out - In such circumstances to avoid further complications property should continue in possession of receiver till decision of Civil Court - Thus party in whose favour decision of Civil Court was given might get back possession of property from receiver as also mesne profits collected by him - Hence order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate was according to law and within jurisdiction - Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Chandrapal Singh, J.

By this petition, Sureshchandra seeks interference with the order of the Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 91/81, dismissing the petitioner Sureshchandra's revision petition.

The facts giving rise to this petition in short are as follows :- On 22nd June, 1981, the Police Mhow (the non-applicant No. 19) submitted a report under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mhow, alleging that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed between the petitioner Sureshchandra on the one hand and the non-applicants No. 1 to 18 on the other hand concerning agricultural lands with survey Numbers 1009, 1014, 1015, 1018, 1169, 1200, 1243, 1245, 1278, 1244, 1200/1357, 1244/1368, situated in village Gavli Palasiya, Tahsil Mhow. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate being satisfied, passed a preliminary order the same day calling upon the parties to submit the written statements of their respective claims to the property in dispute. He also passed an order under section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the attachment of the lands in dispute and appointed the non-applicant No. 20 the Tahsildar, Mhow, a receiver for them.

Before these proceedings, however, Sitabai the non-applicant No. 1, on 5th May, 1980 had filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Mhow against the non-applicants No. 10 to 16 and had also sought ex parte injunction preventing the non-applicants No. 10 to 16 the defendants in that case from interfering with her possession. On 20th November, 1980, the petitioner Sureshchandra also had filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Mhow against the non-applicants No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and had also applied for temporary injunction for restraining them from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute and the Civil Judge had ordered the non-applicants No. 2 to 7 to maintain status quo regarding possession.

Dissatisfied with the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate attaching the property in dispute and appointing a receiver for it, the petitioner Sureshchandra preferred a revision petition before the Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Indore which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed on the ground that the impugned order was interlocutory and that he did not have inherent powers to give redress to the petitioner. This led the petitioner Sureshchandra to submit this petition.

As regards the contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, attaching the property and appointing a receiver, was final without entering into the controversy whether it was interlocutory order or a final one, suffic