JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing the order dated 03.06.2015 passed in Crl. Rev. 1(1) of 2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. 2. Out of a land dispute between the co-owners, one Smt. Renu Bala Biswas wife of Sri Sridam Biswas lodged a complaint to the Kakraban Police Station and, accordingly Kakraban Police Station has drawn up a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C and forwarded the matter to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District by filing a police report. 3. During the proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. another complaint was lodged by Sri Sridham Biswas of village Uttar Tulamura P/S Kakraban against the Umakanta Biswas and others with a prayer to draw up a proceeding under Section 145/144 of Cr.P.C. on apprehension of serious breach of peace and illegal, unauthoritative and arbitrary interference by the opposite party-respondents in regard to the possession of the suit land under the co-ownership of the complainant as well as the opposite party-respondents in the present petition. 4. After receipt of the complain, the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura registered it as case No. Misc 210/2014 and issued notice upon the opposite parties to contest the proceeding. Accordingly, after seeking for some adjournments, the opposite party-respondents (hereinafter referred to the opposite parties) ultimately, filed their written statements. After completing the exchange of pleadings by the parties to the proceeding, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, had fixed further dates to proceed with subsequent stages of proceeding in accordance with law. But the opposite parties did not appear and was seeking for adjournment. Ultimately, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur has passed an order on 22.12.2014 which is reproduced below:- “Today the date fixed for hearing and order The 1st party member/petitioner & opposite party no-4 are present along with their engaged counsel and opposite party nos.1 & 2 are absent by filing petition for time. Heard and considered. The time petition filed is rejected, earlier on number of dates opposite party nos.1 & 2 did not appears even not taken any steps. The petitioner and ops Nos.1 & 4 submitted their respective written statement. Heard and considered. The time petition filed is rejected, earlier on number of dates opposite party nos.1 & 2 did not appears even not taken any steps. The petitioner and ops Nos.1 & 4 submitted their respective written statement. Petitioner and his wife Smt. Renu Bala Biswas raised complaint against the O.P. No. 1 & 2 and other alleging that the O.P No.1 & 2 and their wives committed violence on them and in this regard two Misc Case U/S 107 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 268/2014 & 308/2014 were registered on the basis of the P.R. submitted by the O/C Kakraban P.S. before the ld. Court, which are pending now. Apart from this the petitioner and opp. No-4 further raised complaint dated 17.06.2014 against the opposite party no. 1 & 2 by alleging that on several occasions said opposite parties has given threatening to dispossess the petitioner & his wife from the proceeding land and to snatch the green crops from the proceeding land by using brutal force, even they physically tortured the petitioner who has taken treatment from Govt. Hospital and also submitted medical prescription, which is speaking about the injuries of the petitioner. Even after expiry of earlier tow dates, the opposite party no-1 & 2 did not raise any material objections either oral or written against the said allegations made in the petitioner of the petitioner & O.P. No.4 and also on the verbal submission made by the engaged counsels of the petitioner & O.P No-4. And again today, the petitioner said as well as opposite party No.4 Hari Kamal Biswas has filed petitioner for passing necessary order for appointment of receiver to protect their right of enjoyment over the green crops in the proceeding land which is joint in nature. The petitioner & O.P No.4 alleges in their respective petition dated 22.12.14 and as well as submission made through their counsels that the OP No.1 & 2 along with their wives, other brother and workers are trying to evict the petitioner and opp-4 and to snatch the green crops, if not protected by appointment receiver U/S 146 Cr.P.C. there would be serious breach of peace in the locality. The Subject matter of the proceeding being joint property in nature and the petitioner as well as O.P no-4 claimed that they would be evicted very soon by O.P no.1 &2 from their legal right/vegetables like potato brinjal etc., In the proceeding land appertaining to plot nos. 4939, 4942, 4851, 4961, 4941, 4958/8866 & 4958 respectively comprised in khatian nos. 1526, 1527, 1528, 1529, and 309/1 under mouja Jitendra Nagar and some is also reflected from the petition dated 10-12-14 of the O.P no-4 namely Hari Kamal Biswas. And it also reveals there from that the O.P Nos.1 & 2 trying to cultivate the part of proceeding land forcibly and further similar nature of threatening has been given for snatching the crops and depriving the enjoyment right of parties over the proceeding land usufructs thereof. The circumstances arisen as a result are of emergency nature and such right of enjoyment of parties of the proceeding are required to be protected by attaching the proceeding land bearing plot no. 4939, 4942, 4851, 4961, 4941, 4958/8866 & 4958 under mouja jitendranangar for the interest of justice. Even parties raised no objection/question against the jointness of interest over proceeding land. Considering the above aspects and materials available in the case record, it is necessary to appoint receiver U/S 146(1) Cr.P.C. to protect the rights of the petitioner & other parties to his proceeding. Hence, the O/C KKB. P.S. is appointed as Receiver and directed to attach the proceeding land bearing plot no. 4939, 4942, 4851, 4961 4941, 4958/8866 & 4958 under Mouja – jitendranagar and take care and protection accordingly. He is directed to sell the vegetable/crops which are being perishable in nature as the case may be and deposit the sale proceeds there of before the Court until further order of the Ld. Court, and submit reports accordingly. O/C Kakraban Police Station is directed to take necessary steps for execution of the order. Also serve a copy of this Order to Tdr. Mirza T.K. with a direction to assist O/C Kakbaran P.S for identification of the noted R.S. to assist O/C Kakraban P.S. for identification of the noted R.S. plot nos., and to extend possible help for proper execution of the Order.” 5. Also serve a copy of this Order to Tdr. Mirza T.K. with a direction to assist O/C Kakbaran P.S for identification of the noted R.S. to assist O/C Kakraban P.S. for identification of the noted R.S. plot nos., and to extend possible help for proper execution of the Order.” 5. By the said order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, attached the property and appointed the Officer-in-Charge of the Kakraban Police Station as its receiver with a further direction that the Officer-in-Charge could sale the crops/vegetables grown over the proceeding land and sale proceeds were to be deposited to the office of the learned SDM, Udaipur until further order and also directed to maintain the peace and tranquility in the locality. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.12.2014 the respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 5 have preferred a revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. before learned Sessions Court, Udaipur, Gomati District. The present petitioner also appeared and contested the proceeding being summoned. The present petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur under Section 146 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and no interference is called for by the Revisional Court. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing both the parties has held that the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur is without jurisdiction and no opportunity was afforded to the opposite parties to defend the case. 8. Learned Sessions Judge has also recorded that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur did not consider whether an emergent situation was prevailing that forced the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur to attach the property. After being so viewed, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 and set aside the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati with a further direction to draw up the proceeding properly and determine points he discussed before passing such order of attachment and appointment of receiver vide his order dated 03.06.2015 9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 03.06.2015, the petitioner has preferred this petition asking this Court to invoke its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and to set aside/quash the order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision No 01(1)/2015. 10. Mr. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 03.06.2015, the petitioner has preferred this petition asking this Court to invoke its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and to set aside/quash the order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision No 01(1)/2015. 10. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondents are the co-sharers of the proceeding land and there were repeated incident of quarrels and threats leading to assault and bloodsheds among the co-sharers along with their respective men and agents in regard to the possession and supremacy of the parties to the proceeding over the land in question. Ultimately, the situation became alarming that caused a serious apprehension of breach of peace prompting the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur to attach the property restraining all the parties to the proceeding from entering the proceeding land. The situation was so emergent that if it was interfered with at that moment, there could even be bloodbath causing serious breach of peace in the locality. 11. The learned counsel further submits that after taking note of the emergent and aggravated situation, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur has thought it fit to attach the landed property under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C with other directions upon the Officer-in-Charge, Kakraban Police Station. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has further contended that the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District has committed serious illegality in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C, since the order under Section 146 Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order and is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. Learned Session Judge, Gomati District has erroneously held that the learned SDM, Udaipur neither decided the question of emergency nor provided opportunity to the respondent-O.Ps to defend their respective cases. 12. I have perused the order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur as well as the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the SDM, Udaipur. 13. Learned Session Judge, Gomati District has erroneously held that the learned SDM, Udaipur neither decided the question of emergency nor provided opportunity to the respondent-O.Ps to defend their respective cases. 12. I have perused the order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur as well as the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the SDM, Udaipur. 13. From the order dated 22.12.2014 it is evident that while rejecting the application for adjournment filed by the opposite parties, it was clearly observed that the learned SDM Udaipur had allowed the prayer for adjournments on previous dates and after considering the said aspect, according to this Court, the rejection of the time petition on 22.12.2014 by the learned SDM, Udaipur does not suffer from any irregularity and no prejudice was caused to the opposite parties. 14. While proceeding further, the learned SDM, Udaipur had taken note of the emergent situation. The parties to the proceeding were fighting to take control or dominion over the absolute possession of the proceeding land and usufructs thereof. The complainant suffered injury which is supported by medical reports. Even opposite party No. 4, i.e., the respondent No.6 of the present petition, Hari kamal Biswas had tried to persuade the learned SDM, to attach the property by filing a separate application restraining the parties from being involved in criminal activities with reasonable apprehension that the ongoing disputes was likely to cause a breach of the peace. 15. Further, the learned SDM, has categorically observed in his order dated 22.12.2014 that after the medical reports are submitted by the complainant the opposite party-respondents did not file any material objection against the said facts of injury caused due to attack by the opposite party-respondents 1 to 5 16. On perusal of the order dated 22.12.2014 it is evident that the learned, SDM has not determined the right, title interest of any of the co-owners of the proceeding land. On perusal of the order dated 22.12.2014 it is evident that the learned, SDM has not determined the right, title interest of any of the co-owners of the proceeding land. Thus, the learned SDM Udaipur only invoked his discretionary power which was well within the scope and ambit of his jurisdiction vested upon him under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C and attached the property to protect the proportionate interest of the co-owner of the proceeding land on an emergent situation and to prevent breach of the peace in the locality which might have even caused serious harm and injury to the body or persons of all the co-owners of the proceeding land. 17. On the other hand, the learned Sessions Judge, while passing the order dated 03.06.2015 only observed that the learned SDM, Udaipur did not discuss anything whether there was any emergency and further held by way of attaching of the proceeding land, the right of the parties was badly affected. The learned Sessions Judge, observed that no adequate opportunity was provided to the opposite parties. 18. On perusal of both the orders passed by the learned SDM, Udaipur as well as the learned Sessions Judge and in the light of the discussions made above, this Court observes that there is serious conflict in regard to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 and that takes me to take note of both the provisions reproduced hereinunder, for convenience:- “145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is like to cause breach of peace.- (1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute………………” (2)………………………………………… (3)………………………………………. (4)……………………………………. (5)……………………………………… (6)……………………………………. (4)……………………………………. (5)……………………………………… (6)……………………………………. (7)…………………………………… (8) If the Magistrate is of opinion that any crop or other produce of the property, the subject of dispute in a proceeding under this section pending before him, is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of such property, and, upon the completing of the inquiry, shall make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale-proceeds thereof, as he things fit.” 19. Further Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is also required to be reproduced for determining the illegality and propriety of the order passed by the learned SDM, Udaipur as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District. Section 146 of Code of Criminal Procedure is reproduced under:- “Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint receiver.- (1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Section 145, or it he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof: Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. (2) When the Magistrate attaches the subject of dispute, he may, if so receiver in relation to such subject of dispute has been appointed by any Civil Court, make such arrangement as he considers proper for looking after the property or if he thinks fit, appoint a receiver thereof, who shall have, subject to the control of the Magistrate, all the powers of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)…………” 20. From meticulous reading of Section 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. it is quite obvious that both together constitutes a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace because of a dispute concern in land or water or other boundary. 21. From meticulous reading of Section 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. it is quite obvious that both together constitutes a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace because of a dispute concern in land or water or other boundary. 21. Further, the scheme of these two provisions is that the Magistrate on being satisfied about the existence of a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace could issue a preliminary order stating the ground of his satisfaction and calling upon the parties to appear before him and submit their written statement. An emergency is the basis of attachment under the first limb of Section 146(1) and if there is an emergency, no one can say that there is no dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace. 22. On careful scrutiny of the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the learned SDM, Udaipur this Court is satisfied that the learned SDM, found the situation existed at the relevant period was of precarious nature and was going out of control and if not interfered at that instance, it could led to cause serious breach of the peace not only in the proceeding land but also in the locality. Further, the learned SDM, could not satisfy himself which of the parties to the proceeding were in actual possession of the land in question. I find no illegality in the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the learned SDM, Udaipur and he did not exceed his jurisdiction vested upon him under Section 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. 23. Going to the second plank of the material aspects of the case, whether the order passed by an executive authority in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 146 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory one or not and if it is an interlocutory order whether there is any scope of interference by the Sessions Court in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. 24. The word ‘interlocutory’ means “provisional: interim: temporary: not final. Something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter, but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.” (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) 25. The word ‘interlocutory’ means “provisional: interim: temporary: not final. Something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter, but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.” (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) 25. The very nature of the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the learned SDM, Udaipur makes it clear that the order has been passed during the course of proceeding after exchange of pleadings by the rival parties and considering the emergency of the matter, which, if allowed to be continued could have caused serious breach of the peace. By no stretch of imagination it can be termed as a final order. More over, it is within the ambit of jurisdiction of the learned SDM, Udaipur to cancel or withdraw the said order of attachment when the rights of the parties are finally decided by a competent Court and there is no longer any dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace with regard to subject of dispute. So, it is a temporary arrangement to control the emergent situation. 26. So, from the above discussion the natural conclusion is that an order of attachment is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies. 27. As such the learned Sessions Judge, has committed patent error in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, also has suffered from non-application of mind since he failed to visualize the emergent situation in the instant case. Needless to say, the learned Sessions Judge has misinterpreted and misconstrued the authorities he relied upon in his order. Hence, the order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be quashed. 28. In the reasons stated above the present appeal is allowed. Consequently the order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is quashed/set aside, and the order dated 22.12.2014 of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura in Misc. 210 of 2014 is restored. 29. However, I direct the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible because a considerable delay has already been occurred.