Mohd. Shamim Khan vs Tanjeem Akhtar and Others

B.K. Rathi, J.—This is a revision u/s 397, Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 11.8.1998 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, in Criminal Revision No. 101 of 1998.

I have heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Sri H.N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

The facts of the case are that the orders under Sections 145(1) and 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure were passed by the S.D.M. Dhampur, these orders were challenged in the above criminal revision by opposite party No. 3. The revision has been allowed by the impugned order and both the orders have been quashed. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that both the orders were interlocutory and it is an established law that no revision is maintainable against the interlocutory orders and the revision is barred by mischief of Clause (2) of Section 397. Code of Criminal Procedure That the revision was not maintainable and the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in allowing the revision. The perusal of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that he allowed the revision on the ground that the consolidation proceedings have started in the village and the dispute regarding possession of the property in dispute is before the Consolidation Authority. However, no order of the Consolidation Authority was placed on the record by which the dispute between them might have been decided or any finding regarding possession of any particular party might have been recorded. The pendency of consolidation proceedings does not bar proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure The proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure can be held and the possession can be decided unless there is a decision of the consolidation court or the civil court regarding possession of the parties.

Considering the arguments of the parties, I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in allowing the revision and dropping the orders under Sections 145(1) and 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure The revision is, therefore, fit to be allowed.

The revision is allowed and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor passed in Criminal Revision No. 101 of 1998 is quashed.