JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 28.5.2013 passed by the Assistant Collector cum Sub Divisional Officer, Tibbi in Cr. Case No. 1/2013 whereby, upon the complaint filed by the S.H.O. Talwarajheel initially the learned Executive Magistrate directed attachment and appointed the S.H.O., P.S. Talwarajheel as receiver over the property in dispute and later reviewed the order and cancelled the same. 2. Facts in brief are that the S.H.O. P.S. Talwarajheel filed a complaint under section 145 Cr.P.C. against Rewat Ram etc. being party no. 1 and Amarjeet etc. being party no. 2 in the Court of the S.D.M., Tibbi. The complaint was registered on 23.5.2013 and notices were issued to the parties for appearance on 28.5.2013. On 28.5.2013, it appears that none appeared for the parties. The S.D.M. took cognizance of the affidavit filed by the S.H.O. in support of the complaint mentioning therein that disputes were going on between the parties regarding the field in question and Cr. Cases had also been registered. It was prayed in the affidavit that the land be attached. The learned S.D.M. vide order dated 28.5.2013 accepted the prayer made by the S.H.O. and directed attachment of the land in question and appointed the S.H.O. Talwarajheel as receiver over the disputed property and simultaneously directed that the land shall continue under the receiver's possession till the civil court decides the dispute between the parties. The file was disposed of. After signing the order on 28.5.2013, the learned Executive Magistrate appears to have taken up the matter once again on the same day on an application filed by the party no. 1 and on the basis of alleged order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh, all previously passed orders were withdrawn and the proceedings were dropped. The petitioner being the party No.2 has approached this Court assailing the said order by way of the instant misc. petition. 3. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a criminal court has no jurisdiction to review or recall its own order. As the parties failed to appear despite notice, the learned S.D.M. by the order dated 28.5.2013 appointed the S.H.O. Police Station Talwarajheel as receiver on the land in question. The matter was closed finally. petition. 3. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a criminal court has no jurisdiction to review or recall its own order. As the parties failed to appear despite notice, the learned S.D.M. by the order dated 28.5.2013 appointed the S.H.O. Police Station Talwarajheel as receiver on the land in question. The matter was closed finally. Thereafter the S.D.M. even signed the order but later on acting on a misinformation provided by the party no.1, he proceeded to review and recall his own order and dropped the proceedings without providing an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submits that exfacie the impugned order amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the Court. He submits that the order of temporary injunction dated 27.05.2013 which was relied upon by the learned S.D.M. was also not an order in relation to possession of the land in question. By the order dated 27.5.2013, the learned Addl. Dist. Judge no.2, Hanumangarh had simply issued an order of injunction against the transfer/mortgage of the property in question. Learned counsel thus submits that the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Hemant Dutt vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the learned S.D.M. was under an obligation to drop the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. because the competent civil court was seized of a litigation pertaining to possession over the property in question. Thus, he prays that no interference is called for in the impugned order.Learned P.P. supports the contentions advanced by Mr. Shah. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. The law is well settled that a criminal court has no power to review or recall its own order. The complaint in question was filed on 23.5.2014. Notice was issued to the parties for the next date which was fixed as 28.5.2013. The parties failed to appear before the learned S.D.M. on which the learned S.D.M. acting on the affidavit filed by S.H.O. P.S. Talwarajheel by the initial portion of the order directed attachment of the property and appointed the S.H.O. Talwarajheel as receiver thereupon. The file was closed directing that the land shall continue to remain under the receiver's possession till the civil court decides the dispute between the parties. The file was closed directing that the land shall continue to remain under the receiver's possession till the civil court decides the dispute between the parties. Thereafter on the very same day, acting on an application filed on behalf of the party no. 1, the order was recalled and the proceedings were dropped. The order is patently illegal. Firstly, the criminal court has no power to review or recall its own order. Nonetheless, Section 145(6) of the Cr.P.C. empowers the learned Executive Magistrate to reconsider and drop the order of attachment and the whole proceedings. It goes without saying that such an order can be made after providing opportunity of hearing to the other party. In this case, the party no. 2 to whom the petitioner represents was admittedly not provided opportunity to contest the application filed by the party no.1. Thus, the order impugned cannot stand to scrutiny. 6. Accordingly, the misc. petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 28.5.2013 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the S.D.M., Tibbi, Dist. Hanumangarh to consider the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The parties shall appear before the S.D.M. Tibbi on 28.11.2014 where after the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******