R. P. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 482, Cr. P. C. moved by one Shamsher Singh praying to quash the order dated 16/8/1981 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 1981; Ajaib Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh and others. It has further been prayed that the order dated 31/12/1980 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Najibabad in proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code in Case No. 10 of 1981; Shamsher Singh v. Ajaib Singh be restored. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case are that Shams her Singh moved an application under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code claiming his exclusive possession over Khasra plot No. 27; area 27 bighas 13 biaswas and 6 biswansis situate in village Doodhala Dayalwala, Police Station Shyampur, District Bijnor. He apprehended breach of peace at the hands of opposite parties Ajaib Singh, Tarsem Singh, Surendra Singh and Gajjan Singh who too claimed their possession over the same land. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code on 4/12/1979 and ordered the parties to adduce their respective evidence. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after considering the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the two parties was in possession over the disputed plot at the time of the passing of the preliminary order or two months prior to it and, therefore, he attached the disputed plot under section 146 (1) Criminal Procedure Code until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession there of. He passed this order under section 146 (1), Criminal Procedure Code on 31. 12. 1980. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite-parties went in revision and the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor by his order dated 16. 6. 81 set aside the said order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and dropped the proceedings because be found that the land in dispute was in joint possession of the parties. 12. 1980. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite-parties went in revision and the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor by his order dated 16. 6. 81 set aside the said order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and dropped the proceedings because be found that the land in dispute was in joint possession of the parties. ( 3 ) IT has been urged by counsel for the applicant that in view of the clear cut finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that he could not satisfactorily decide as to which party was in possession over the disputed plot on the date of the preliminary order or two months prior to it, the Second Additional Sessions Judge could not set aside this order by substituting his own finding in regard to the possession over the disputed plot. The above being a finding of fact could not be disturbed in revision. It has further been urged by counsel for the applicant that the order of the Magistrate could not lie revised by the Sessions Judge as it was an interlocutory order. ( 4 ) SECTION 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: The powers of revision conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutor, order passed in an appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. ( 5 ) AN interlocutory order is not defined any where in the Code of Criminal. Procedure. However, an interlocutory order is not an order finally determining the rights of the par. ties but an order at intermediate stage of the proceeding for the purpose of advancing the proper decision of the subject matter of dispute. ( 6 ) THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not finally adjudicated the rights of the partes, but has only referred the matter to the civil court for determination of the rights of the parties with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. The main purpose of attachment under section 146 (1), Criminal Procedure Code is two fold; (i) the property should remain intact for the benefit of the right claimant and (ii) breach of peace between the parties may be avoided. The main purpose of attachment under section 146 (1), Criminal Procedure Code is two fold; (i) the property should remain intact for the benefit of the right claimant and (ii) breach of peace between the parties may be avoided. The order of attachment under section 146 (1), Criminal Procedure Code is made subsequent to the passing of an order under section 145 (1), Criminal Procedure Code and prior to the final decision of the case under section 145 (4) read with section 145 (6), Criminal Procedure Code. The order under section 146 (1), Criminal Procedure Code does not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. It does not go to decide the rights of any party to the proceedings. Such order is, therefore, an interlocutory order: against which revision is barred by section 397 (2), Criminal Procedure Code. ( 7 ) IN the light of the above observations, the Sessions Judge acted erroneously in enter taming the revision and setting aside the finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by substituting his own finding therein. ( 8 ) IN the result, the application succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Sessions Judge, dated 16/6/1981 passed in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 1981,. Ajaib Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh and others is hereby quashed and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Najibabad District Bijnor, dated 31/12/1980 in proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code Shamsher Singh v. Ajaib Singh in case No. 10 of 1981 is restored. .