Seth Pal vs State of U.P. and others

K.N. Sinha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

The facts giving rise to this application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. are that on the application of the applicant the Deputy District Magistrate Behat, District Saharanpur called for a report from police station whereupon the police requested the court to initiate the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. The Deputy District Magistrate initiated the proceedings u/s 145(1), Cr.P.C. on 26.10.2004. The opposite party No.2 appeared and filed an objection. The Magistrate passed the order u/s 148(1), Cr.P.C. on 9.11.2004. The said order was challenged by the opposite party No.2 before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No.318 of 2004 in which after hearing both the parties the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur allowed the said revision and set aside the order dated 9.11.2004 but at the same time the Court ordered to send back the file to the Deputy District Magistrate for passing fresh order after hearing both the parties.

Being aggrieved by the said order the present application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed. I have perused the order of the Deputy District Magistrate and that of the Session Judge. The matter of urgency and description of property was raised before the Sessions Judge. The parties have also raised that this order is an interlocutory order. The number of authorities were filed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, however was that the Magistrate has not given any description of property and when time was granted to opposite parties to file the objection then it should not have been disposed of without filing the objection.

The learned counsel for the applicant has filed number of authorities before this Court. Authorities have been filed to show that it is an interlocutory order and the order of the Revisional Court is not maintainable. There are divergent views on this point.

The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that in this case a transfer application was moved for hearing the revision by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. This Court, by order dated 25.5.2005 passed order in Criminal Misc.Transfer Application No.211 of 2005 directing the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur to hear the revision itself and dispose of it within 30 days. The said order has become final and the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur had no opinion but to hear the revision.

Thus, in the peculiar circumstance of the case and in view of the above direction, the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur has rightly heard the revision. The order of the Revisional Court does not give any right or title to any party. It does not prejudice the right of any party. It only directs the Magistrate to pass the order afresh after hearing both the parties. Thus, the application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. has got no force and it is hereby dismissed.