CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2008) 11 AHC CK 0160

Smt. Amna Begum vs A.S.J. Court No. 7 and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 17 November 2008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind K. Tripathi, J
RESULT
Allowed
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 357 words

Arvind K. Tripathi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A., counsel for O.P. No. 2 to 9 and perused the record.

The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 16.9.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 269/2004 between (Smt. Trara Begum and Ors. v. Smt. Amna and Ors.) u/s 145/146(1) Cr.P.C. by which the learned Additional Session Judge allowed the revision filed by opposite party against interlocutory order passed u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C. in proceeding of 145 Cr.P.C.

2.

Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the S.D.M. found that there was apprehension of breach of peace on the spot due to the disputed shop and house hence the order of attachment was passed u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C. on 17.6.2004. Against that order a revision was preferred by the contesting opposite party which was not maintainable since the order was interlocutory order. He has relied upon the judgement in the case of Revti Raman and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2007 (3) ACR 2987 and 2007(2) JIC 791 (All) Narendra Nath Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Anr., in support of his case.

3.

The Revisional Court has mentioned in the order that the order of attachment was passed after hearing of both the parties but from perusal of the order of Deputy Collector, Aliganj dated 17.6.2004, it appears that the order was passed without hearing, the other party. The order u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C. has to be passed in case of emergency, which can be withdrawn or modified at any stage during pendency of the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C.

4.

In view of the fact, the order was passed u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C. on 17.6.2004 was interlocutory order. The opposite party has right to move application and place their case before the S.D.M. to recall or modify the order. Hence in view of the fact, the revision was not maintainable against the order of the S.D.M.

5.

Accordingly, the present revision is allowed. The order of the Revisional Court dated 16.9.2004 is set aside. The S.D.M. is directed to conclude the proceeding expeditiously in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties.