V. N. MEHROTRA, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 15-11-19^0 by Shri S. K. Srivastava, Sessions Judge, Saharanpur passed in Criminal Revision No. 527 of 1990 Ashraf Khan v. State of U. P. and another. 2. The facts in brief are that the present revisionist Atiq Khan moved an application before the S. D. M. , Deoband asserting that he was the owner of one half of the property as detailed in the application while the opposite party was also the owner to the same extent. He has asserted that the opposite party was damaging the trees existing over a portion of that land and when he tried to intervene the opposite party abused him and also attacked him. The applicant asserted that there was likelihood of breach of peace relating to the possession over the land in question. 3. The learned Magistrate called report from the police station con cerned and on the basis of that report, passed order under Section 147 (1), Cr. P. C. on 30-8-1990. The learned Magistrate mentioned in that order that on the basis of the police report he was satisfied that there was a dispute bet ween the parties to the proceedings relating to the possession over the land in dispute. He further mentioned that he was also satisfied that there was appre hension of breach of peace. Subsequently on 1-9-1990 the learned Magistrate passed order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. attaching the land in dispute during the pendency of the proceedings on ground that there was imminent danger of breach of peace. The learned Magistrate by order dated 30-8-1993 directed the parties to appear before him and file their written statements. The second party Ashraf Khan filed a revision against the orders passed by the learned Magistrate that revision was allowed by the impugned order dated 15-ll-19yo on the ground that the dispute related to the joint property over which joint possession has been claimed by the first party. 4. In this revision the learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 149 (i) and 146 (1), Cr. P. C. were interlocutor orders and so a revision against those orders was barred under Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. P. C. were interlocutor orders and so a revision against those orders was barred under Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the decision in the case of Indra Deo Pandey v. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, 1981 AWC 314 (DB), in which this question was considered in detail. It was held that order passed under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. in proceedings under Section 145 (t), Cr. P. C. was an interlocutory order and no revision was maintainable. This view has been taken by this Court in a number of other decisions also. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has, however, argued that as the matter related to joint property, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was not legal and the learned Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction which he could not exercise in initiating proceedings under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C, It is further argued that as the learned Magistrate had no jurisdic tion to initiate the proceedings a revision could be filed against such an order. 7. I have considered the arguments by the learned counsel for the parties. So far there has been consistent view of this Court that the orders passed under Section 145 (1) initiating the proceedings under that section and order of attachment under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. during the same proceedings, are interlocutory orders and a revision against such orders cannot lie. The learned counsel for the opposite party has not been able to produce any other ruling by this Court in which a contrary view might have been taken. As regards the contention by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on the facts of the present case, I am unable to agree with the same. The Magistrate has juris diction to pass orders under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. in case he forms te opinion that there was an apprehension of breach of peace relating to the question of possession over immovable property. He assumed jurisdiction to pass preliminary orders under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C when he forms such an opinion on the basis of the material before him. P. C. in case he forms te opinion that there was an apprehension of breach of peace relating to the question of possession over immovable property. He assumed jurisdiction to pass preliminary orders under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C when he forms such an opinion on the basis of the material before him. The question whether the proceedings under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. should be continued or should be dropped in view of the fact that the matter relates to joint possession over joint property is not a question of jurisdiction but relates to the propriety. It may be said that it will not be appropriate for the Magistrate to pass orders under these provisions in respect of claim of joint possession over joint pro perty but the question does not relate to the lack of jurisdiction of the Magis trate. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. and Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. in the present case. It is a different matter that when the parties appear before the Magistrate concerned and raise their contentions, the Magistrate can consider as to whether the proceedings should be continued or should be dropped in view of the contentions raised before him. I am not expressing any opinion as to whether the orders passed by t ,e learned Magis trate under Sections 145 (1) and 146 (1), Cr. P. C. can be said to be appropriate or proper because this matter can properly be considered by the learned Magis trate be himself. The question at present is as to whether these orders could be challenged by filing revision before the Sessions Judge. As mentioned earlier the orders passed by the Magistrate were interlocutory orders and no revision against the same could be filed. For this reason alone the order by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to set aside. 8. The revision is allowed and the order dated 15-4-1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur is set aside. Parties may make their assertions before the Magistrate concerned including the assertion about the legality or propriety of the proceedings under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. In case the parties or any of them raise such a question before the learned Magistrate he shall hear and decide the same at the earliest. Parties may make their assertions before the Magistrate concerned including the assertion about the legality or propriety of the proceedings under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. In case the parties or any of them raise such a question before the learned Magistrate he shall hear and decide the same at the earliest. Revision allowed. .