JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal revision directed against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sojat, dated May 7, 1973. 2. There is a house situate in Sojat which Smt. Aruna Vyas claims to be her property by virtue of a deed of gift, and Amba Shanker non-petitioner No.1 claims to be his property. On a police report the learned Magistrate issued a notice under section 145 (1) of the old Criminal Procedure Code, and attached the property by virtue of the powers contained in third proviso to sub-section (4) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. There is a preliminary objection that Kanti Lal Vyas husband of Smt. Aruna Vyas was a party before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and he has not been made a party in this revision petition and, therefore, it is not properly constituted. Learned counsel for the applicant says that Kanti Lal Vyas is after-all husband of Smt. Aruna Vyas and has not so far been adverse to her and he is not therefore, a necessary party. 4. In the proceedings before the learned Magistrate Kanti Lal Vyas is a party in his own right and not as husband of Smt. Aruna Vyas and ought to have been present before me when the order affecting him is under challenge. I am not concerned whether his interests are identical with Smt. Aruna Vyas as the learned counsel says, or that they may become conveniently adverse when it is in the interest of strategy Proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code are after all in the nature of a police report and I decline to interfere in the circumstances. 5. The revision is dismissed. *******