Reserved. COURT NO.3 Criminal Mis. Application No.45 of 2002. Sri Guljar Singh ………….Applicant Vs. Sri Devi Datt and others ……………Respondents Hon’ ble Irshad Hussain, J. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Hereinafter for short ‘Code’) has been filed to quash the order dated 09.08.2001 Passed by learned S.D.M. Khatima and judgment and order dated 12.02.2002 passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (Annexure-4 and Annexure-6 to the writ petition respectively). Heard Sri Alok Singh learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Mandal for respondent no. 1 and learned A.G.A. On a report dated 06.10.2000 submitted by police, P.S. Khatima, district Udhma Singh Nagar, an order directing a case under section 145(1) of the Code was registered by the S.D.M. on 20.10.2000 and notices were issued to the parties in dispute which pertain to land khasra plot no. 381/4, area 1 bigha. The report of the police station Khatima as well as the order passed thereon is Annexure-1 to the affidavit of the petitioner. Petitioner submitted his written statement, Annexure-2 on 14.11.2000. Second Party- respondent no. 1 also filed his written statement dated 03.01.2001, Annexure-3. After considering the respective contentions of the said parties, S.D.M., Khatima formed an opinion that apprehension of 2 breach of peace exist in respect of property in dispute and in view thereof went on to pass an order under section 146(1) of the Code on 09.08.2001, Annexure-4. By this order, the police P.S. Khatima was directed to attach the property in dispute and crop standing thereon to be given in the supurdgi of a uninterested person till an order in regard to the title and ownership of any of the two parties is determined by a competent court and till then the further proceedings were stayed in the case. The orders so passed, however, could not be complied with by the police, P.S. Khatima which submitted report dated 04.09.2001, Annexure-5, which is to the effect that there is a house constructed over the land in dispute which is in the occupation of the family members of the first party, the petitioner and since the order passed by the S.D.M. do not contain any direction to have the same vacated to facilitate its attachment. Petitioner preferred a revision against the order passed by the S.D.M, but the same was dismissed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar per judgment and order dated 12.02.2002, Annexure-6. This is how aggrieved by these orders passed by the S.D.M. as well as by the Ii Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, the present criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the S.D.M. under section 146 of the Code is without jurisdiction and illegal because the learned S.D.M. while passing the order of attachment had not recorded any finding that it was case of emergency or that he was unable to satisfy himself as to which party was then in possession of the subject of the dispute. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 argued that it is inherent in the impugned order that the learned S.D.M. had passed the order of attachment in view of the fact that it was a case of emergency and further that he was unable to say on the basis of the material on record as to which of the two parties was in possession of the property in dispute and, therefore the order cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction and improper. 3 Having considered the submissions in the legal aspects of the case it need to be mentioned that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have force and the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.M. deserve to be set aside. The reason is that an analytical examination of the provisions of section 146(1) of the Code would show that the order of attachment can be passed if the magistrate consider the case one of the emergency or if he decides that none of the parties was fund in possession or he is unable to satisfy himself as to which party was then in possession of subject of dispute and a careful reading of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 09.08.2001 would show that he has not recorded finding either that it was a case of emergency or that none of the parties was in possession or that he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties was then in possession when the preliminary order under section 145(1) of the Code was passed. It is also of significance that the learned S.D.M. has passed the impugned order after perusal of the written statement of the parties without calling upon them to produce material in support of their respective contentions and also without giving them any opportunity of hearing and this has also resulted in miscarriage of justice. It will also not be out of place to mention that after submission of the initial report by the police on which the case under section 145(1) of the Code was registered, no further report prior to the passing of the impugned order was submitted indicating that it is a case of emergency calling for immediate action under section 146 of the Code. Petitioner has in his written statement made an averment that he has his residential constructions over the land in dispute and he was residing in it with his family members. This aspect was not considered in the impugned order and this was the reason that the police did not find it proper to make compliance of the impugned order and report to this effect had to be submitted on 04.09.2001, Annexure-5. Considering totality of circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate was not legally Justified to pass the impugned order dated 09.08.2001 and the same can not legally be maintained. 4 In view of above, it is immaterial that the revision of the petitioner before the Session court was dismissed on 12.02.2002. It is now an established law that order passed under section 146(1) of the Code is an interlocutory order and, therefore no revision against such an order is maintainable. Although a revision against interlocutory order is not maintainable, such an order can however be quashed by the Court in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code and considering this the petition succeed and the impugned orders need to be set aside. The petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.08.2001 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khatima and the judgment and order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar are set asi8de. The case is remanded to the learned S.D.M., Khatima-respondent no.3 who shall proceed to decide the case under section 145 of the code on merit after affording opportunity of adducing evidence to the parties according to law. 10.04.2003/B. (Irshad Hussain,J.)