JUDGMENT : PRANJAL DAS, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. M. Shelim, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The revision petitioner, namely, Dalim Hussain Mazumder, has filed this petition invoking the power under Section 434 /442 BNSS , aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Revision No. 25/2021. By the aforesaid revisional order of the learned Sessions Judge the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Cachar drawing up a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., with regard concerned land (herein below referred to as disputed land) and the consequent order of attachment passed under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. – was set aside. 3. The petitioner herein claims to be owner/possessor of the land by way of purchase vide Regd. Sale Deed vide No. 56 dated 08.01.2010. Further contended that on 15.02.2021 in the morning, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, namely, Jamir Uddin Laskar and one Sabir Ahmed Laskar and Abdul Samad Laskar armed with weapon lathi, dao etc. tried to enter into the disputed land and to dispossess the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said development, the petitioner filed an application before the Executive Magistrate, which was put before the learned Additional District Magistrate, M Cachar, Silchar vide case No. 171 /2021. The learned Magistrate is stated to have called for a police report. After perusing the police report – vide order dated 26.02.2021, he was pleased to draw up proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate (ADM) was also pleased to attach the disputed land invoking the power under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. restraining both sides from entering into the said land till further order. The order was drawn up ex-parte and the next date was fixed on 26.03.2021. 4. Thus, in the proceeding by the learned ADM, petitioner herein was the first party and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein were the second party. The respondent No. 1 in this revision petition is the State as a formal party. The respondents/second party aggrieved by the order of the learned ADM preferred a criminal revision vide Criminal Revision No. 25/2021. 2 and 3 herein were the second party. The respondent No. 1 in this revision petition is the State as a formal party. The respondents/second party aggrieved by the order of the learned ADM preferred a criminal revision vide Criminal Revision No. 25/2021. After hearing the parties, the said criminal revision was disposed by the Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar vide order dated 18.07.2024, setting aside the order of the learned ADM drawing up the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the order of attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the first party has preferred the instant criminal revision petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar suffers from jurisdictional error in as much as the order of attachment has being an interlocutory orders; therefore, in terms of Section 438 (2) BNSS , no revision lies – such order being in the nature of interlocutory order. In respect of such contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment and order of this Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand , (2013) 3 SCC 366 and Safique Ali vs. Surajan Bibi , 2003 SCC Online Gau 170 . The petitioner side has also relied upon this Court’s decision in the case Dalim Hussain Mazumdar vs. State of Assam & Ors . 2023 0 Supreme (Gau) 522. 6. It is also contended by the petitioner side that revisional court has wrongly held that possession was stated by the police report in favour of the respondent/second party and proceeding on the said basis, the revisional court reiterated the erroneous finding, which also constitutes perverse finding as it is not based on evidence or material supporting the same. Supporting the order of drawing up proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and attachment passed by the learned ADM, the petitioner side has contended that the order passed in revision suffers from infirmity, being wrong in law and facts and is required to be interfered with, in this revision. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. Supporting the order of drawing up proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and attachment passed by the learned ADM, the petitioner side has contended that the order passed in revision suffers from infirmity, being wrong in law and facts and is required to be interfered with, in this revision. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has contended that the second party/respondents are in possession of the land and the learned trial court was not justified in drawing up the proceeding and in attachment of the land and therefore, the revisional court rightly entertained the revision and set aside the order of the learned ADM which was erroneous in law and facts. 8. I have perused the revision petition; the order of the learned ADM, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar and relevant documents annexed including the police report dated 23.02.2021. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels of both sides and also gone through the decisions cited at the Bar. 9. Before proceeding further, the relevant provision of Section 145 Cr.P.C. [Section 164 BNSS ] and 146 Cr.P.C. [ Section 165 (1) BNSS ] may reproduced herein-below: S.145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely 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) For the purposes of this section, the expression “land or water” includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property. (2) For the purposes of this section, the expression “land or water” includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property. (3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute. (4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub-section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1). (5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final. (6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to subsection (4) be treated as being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed. (b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3). (7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding and shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the purposes of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto. (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 completion of the inquiry, shall make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale-proceeds thereof, as he thinks fit. (9) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceedings under this section, on the application of either party, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing. (10) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation of powers of the Magistrate to proceed under section 107. 146. 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 if 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 no receiver in relation to such subject of dispute has been appointed by any Civil Court, make such arrangements 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): Provided that in the event of a receiver being subsequently appointed in relation to the subject of dispute by any Civil Court, the Magistrate: (a) shall order the receiver appointed by him to hand over the possession of the subject of dispute to the receiver appointed by the Civil Court and shall thereafter discharge the receiver appointed by him; (b) may make such other incidental or consequential orders as may be just. 10. I first prefer to take up the issue of jurisdiction vis-à-vis an attachment order. Paragraph 13 of the decision of this Court in the case of Safique Ali (supra) may reproduced herein-below: “13. It is thus clear from section 397(2) of the Code that no revision lies against an interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. In Ashfaq Hussain's case (supra) and also Smt. Premlata's case (supra) it is held that an order of attachment passed on emergency under section 146(1) of the Code being an interlocutory order, no revision petition shall lie. In that view of the matter there can be no doubt that a revision petition does not lie against an order of attachment passed on emergency under section 146(1) of the Code.” 11. Further, paragraph 8 of the judgment passed by this Court in Dalim Hussain Mazumder (supra) may also be reproduced herein below – “8. The order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate is based purely on a police report and the said order was passed because of emergency. The respondents were given the opportunity to appear and to contest the said proceeding. But they did not do so and filed a revision petition instead. This Court is of the opinion that the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Executive Magistrate is an interlocutory order passed on the basis of a police report and because of an emergency. The respondents were given the opportunity to appear and to contest the said proceeding. But they did not do so and filed a revision petition instead. This Court is of the opinion that the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Executive Magistrate is an interlocutory order passed on the basis of a police report and because of an emergency. Therefore, the order dated 09.09.2022 is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against such an order. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar erroneously directed itself by entertaining the revision petition. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Revision No. 68/2021 is set aside.” 12. From those decisions, it is clear that this Court has held that an order of attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. and therefore, no revision would lie against such order, being in the nature of an interlocutory order. 13. Needless to say that, for the purpose of determining whether an order interlocutory within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. not just the form, but substance of the order and more especially the effect thereof, has also to be seen to arrive at a determination about its to nature. In this regard, there are several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also this Court. Nevertheless, in view of the clear determination of a coordinate bench of this Court regarding the interlocutory nature of an attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. – this Court is obligated by judicial discipline to follow the same. If a different view is sought to be taken, the matter would have to be referred to a larger Bench. Upon perusing the said two decisions, I respectfully defer to the said order and not inclined to take a different view. 14. Upon perusing the provision of Section 146 Cr.P.C. [ Section 165 (1) BNSS ], it appears that the order of attachment can be passed in any or more or three situations – (i) if there is emergency or; (ii) if the court finds that none of the parties are in possession of the land or court finds from the materials that, it is not clear as to which of the parties are in possession. In this regard, decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar (supra) may be referred to and relevant paragraphs like 9, 10 and 11 reproduced herein below – “9. The above order would indicate that the SDM has, in our view, wrongly invoked the powers under Section 146 (1) CrPC. Under Section 146 (1), a Magistrate can pass an order of attachment of the subject of dispute if it be a case of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was in such possession, or he cannot decide as to which of them was in possession. Sections 145 and 146 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace and Section 146 cannot be separated from Section 145 CrPC. It can only be read in the context of Section 145 CrPC. If after the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate is of the opinion that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject of dispute at the time of the order passed under Section 145 (1) or is unable to decide which of the parties was in such possession, he may attach the subject of dispute, until a competent court has determined the right of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof. 10. The ingredients necessary for passing an order under Section 145 (1) of the Code would not automatically attract for the attachment of the property. Under Section 146 , a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists before he passes an order of attachment. A case of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 of the Code, has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of a breach of the peace. The Magistrate, before passing an order under Section 146 , must explain the circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency. In other words, to infer a situation of emergency, there must be material on record before the Magistrate when the submission of the parties is filed, documents produced or evidence adduced. 11. We find from this case that there is nothing to show that an emergency exists so as to invoke Section 146 (1) and to attach the property in question. 11. We find from this case that there is nothing to show that an emergency exists so as to invoke Section 146 (1) and to attach the property in question. A case of emergency, as per Section 146 of the Code has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of peace. When the reports indicate that one of the parties is in possession, rightly or wrongly, the Magistrate cannot pass an order of attachment on the ground of emergency. The order acknowledges the fact that Ashok Kumar has started construction in the property in question, therefore, possession of property is with the appellant Ashok Kumar, whether it is legal or not, is not for the SDM to decide.” 15. In the context of the principles and law laid down in Ashok Kumar (supra), the facts matrix of the instant case have to be seen to determine as to whether the order of learned ADM drawing up a proceeding and attaching the land was correct or otherwise. Alternatively, it has to be seen from the materials as to whether any of the conditions necessary for invoking the power to attach the disputed land was available in the instant case. 16. For this purpose, I again go back to the police report dated 23.02.2021. It is stated in the police report that “first party along with brother namely, Jakir Hussain and the owner of the below schedule land that the second party aim possession of the said land since few days/months. It is also stated that on 15.02.2021, the second party along with anti-social of the locality are roaming in the said land with da, lathi and deadly weapons for driving out of the first party from the land who have gone to possession of the said land.” 17. In my opinion, from the police report and the finding therein, it is not crystal clear as to who was in possession of the land. However, considering the nature of acts attributed to the second party in the police report, it would not be incorrect to hold that an emergent situation did exist to some extent vis-a-vis breach of law and order. In the order dated 26.02.2021, the learned ADM has called upon both the parties to submit written statements to substantiate their respective claims and possession. 18. In the order dated 26.02.2021, the learned ADM has called upon both the parties to submit written statements to substantiate their respective claims and possession. 18. In para 7 of the order passed by the learned Revisional Court, it has been held that the police report indicated the possession in favour of the second party. 19. In my considered opinion, the said finding is not correct as there is no clear cut material or evidence to hold that second party was in possession; rather there might be a small possibility of the fist party being in possession; though even that is not very clear from the police report. 20. Thus, from the materials, I find that – it was not clear who was in possession of the disputed land and secondly a situation of some emergency vis-a-vis breach of law also existed. Therefore, one can say that the aforementioned conditions existed which justified drawing up a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and attaching the land under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. That apart, as discussed – the learned Revisional Court fell into error in entertaining the revision against the order of attachment though the principles of law laid as noticed above, have held an order of attachment to be non-revisable, as it is an interlocutory order. Consequently, in the backdrop of the above narration and discussion – the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Revision No. 25/2021 is hereby set aside and quashed. Resultantly, the order M dated 26.03.2021 passed by the learned ADM in Case No. 171 /2021 stands revived. 21. The said proceeding may now go ahead and be decided in regular course. The parties shall appear before the learned ADM, Cachar, Silchar with a certified copy of this judgment on 10.11.2025 and receive further orders from the learned ADM, Cachar, Silchar. 22. The criminal revision stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms.