Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Pending the proceedings, the Executive Magistrate passed another order on 17.1.2014 under Section 146 of Cr.P.C attaching the property in dispute on the finding that it is not possible to decide on the basis of the materials furnished by the parties, as to who was in fact in possession of the building on the relevant date. The said order of attachment passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C is under challenge in this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents, and also the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State, made a preliminary objection that this revision is not maintainable,  or that order of attachment passed under Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C for the reason that it is only an interlocutory order as meant under Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C. This preliminary objection was heard in detail.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the impugned order cannot be said to be an interlocutory order in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and Others v. Uttam and Another [1999 (3) SCC 134]. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even an order of the Magistrate directing issuance of process cannot be said to be an interlocutory order. Answer to the question of law is contained in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that interlocutory order means or denotes orders of purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. This explanation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will show that a mere interim arrangement made by the Executive Magistrate under  Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C by an order of attachment is only an interlocutory order which will have limited force and effect, without affecting the rights of parties and without touching the important question in dispute, and also subject to withdrawal or cancellation under the proviso to Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C. Order passed under Section 146 of Cr.P.C is always subject to final decision, it is subject to decision of the competent civil court, it will not decide the dispute between the parties, and above all, it is subject to cancellation or withdrawal under the proviso to Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner cited a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gulabchand v. State of U.P [2004 Crl.L.J 2672], that an order passed under Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C without any material for subjective satisfaction about likelihood of breach of peace, is bad in law, and is amenable to revisional jurisdiction. But in 2007, another Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court decided otherwise in Revati Raman & Others v. State of U.P. and Others [2007 (1) ALJ 448]. The purport and  spirit of the said decision is that if any of the grounds or conditions mentioned under Section 146 Cr.P.C is satisfied, and the impugned order was passed on any of the grounds, it will have the character of only an interlocutory order, and such an order will not be amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. In Asok Kumar V. State of Uttarkhand & others [2013 (3) SCC 366], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a dispute involving likelihood of breach of peace, and Section 146 cannot be separated from Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that if the Executive Magistrate finds after enquiry that it is not possible to decide who among the parties was in actual possession at the time of passing orders under Section 145 (1) of Cr.P.C, the Executive Magistrate can order attachment of the property in dispute, and such attachment can continue in force till a competent civil court adjudicates and decides the dispute including right to possess.

8. Once a decision is taken by the Executive Magistrate as provided under Section 145 (4) of Cr.P.C, he will have to proceed further under Section 145 (6) of Cr.P.C to declare such party to be entitled to possession, until evicted in due course of law. Order of declaration under Section 145 (6) of Cr.P.C is required only in a case where the Executive Magistrate has decided under Section 145(4) as  to who among the parties was in fact in possession on the relevant date, or who should be treated as being in such possession on the relevant date. Declaration under Section 145 (6) of Cr.P.C is not required when he finds it difficult to decide who among the parties was in possession. In such a situation, as an interim measure, he can resort to the procedure under Section 146 of Cr.P.C and attach the property in dispute. Attachment under Section 146 of Cr.P.C is possible in three factual situations. One situation is that the Executive Magistrate finds a case of emergency and finds the necessity of immediate measures to prevent breach of peace, the other situation is where he finds that none of the parties was in fact in possession when he made orders under Section 145 (1) of Cr.P.C, and the third situation is where he finds it unable to satisfy himself as to who among them was in actual possession of the subject of dispute on the relevant date. If any of these situations is there, the Executive Magistrate can very well pass order of attachment under Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C. Even before proceeding for enquiry under Section 145 (4) of Cr.P.C,  order of attachment can be made under Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C, if one of the three situations is there.