CRM-M- No. 33576 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- No. 33576 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.11.2011 Kapoor Singh and others …Petitioners Versus Bishan Singh and others …Respondents ………. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Undisputedly, petitioners herein had filed suit for declaration claiming possession over the property in question, which is pending between the parties before the competent civil court. Undisputedly, petitioners had moved an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for initiation of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’). Undisputedly, during the pendency of the civil suit between the parties, learned Magistrate had passed an order for attachment of the property and appointment of the receiver on 07.01.2010. Order dated 07.01.2010 was set aside, in the Revision, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 15.10.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that order attaching the property and consequential appointment of receiver dated 07.01.2010, passed under Section 146(1) of the Code, was an interlocutory order, therefore, no revision was maintainable before the Sessions Judge. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Kartar Singh Vs. Smt. Pritam Kaur’, reported in 1984 CRM-M- No. 33576 of 2011 (O&M) 2 (1) RCR (Criminal) 617, to say that revision was not maintainable against the order passed under Section 146 (1) of the Code. There is no dispute about this proposition of law. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court can look into the correctness of the order passed by Magistrate which was under challenge before the Revisional Court, even if it is found that order passed by learned Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction. Since civil suit, involving the question of title and possession, is pending between the parties and parties are in position to seek interim order from the Civil Court, proceeding under Section 145 of Code is not at all maintainable. Setting aside the order passed by the Revisional Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction would amount to restoration of the order of the Magistrate which itself was without jurisdiction. This Court cannot permit restoration of illegal order while setting aside the order passed in Revision. This is the unique case where this Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice by setting aside both the orders passed by learned Sessions Judge as well as by the Magistrate. Consequently, impugned order dated 15.10.2011, passed by Revisional Court, stands set aside. Order dated 07.01.2010, passed by learned Magistrate, is also set aside. Proceeding pending before the Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code also stands quashed. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( Alok Singh ) November 7, 2011 Judge Anand