JUDGMENT R.K. Rastogi, J.
1. This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 16.4.1990 passed by Sri K.K. Agarwal, then 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 96 of 1989, Krishan Pal and 156 others v. Subhash Chand Gupta and 45 Ors.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that a report was lodged by constable Siyanand at police station Medical on 7.11.1983 at 8.45 P.M. about apprehension of breach of peace. The matter was enquired by the police of police station Medical and the report was submitted under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in which members of first parties were Subhash Chand and 2 others and of second party were Shiv Charan and 72 others. It was alleged in the said report that Khasra plot No. 5730/5/1 belonged to Bhawani Shanker. An area of 3-14-10 was alleged to be in possession ol Bhawani Shanker, and on the said land there was residence ol Bhawani Shanker. Some other small houses were in possession of the tenants. There was dispute in respect of the land of the plot across the road and so there was apprehension of breach of peace. The S.O. on this report prayed the Court for proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The preliminary order was passed by he Magistrate on 9.11.1983. The parties filed written statements. Subhash Chand Gupta prayed for attachment of the disputed property under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. Second party filed objection against the application under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. moved by Subhash Chand. The learned Magistrate passed order for attachment of property in dispute vide order dated 9.12.1983. However, the attachment could not be made. In the meantime 2 applications C-24/1 and C-24/5 were moved by some persons alleging therein that they were in actual possession but they were not impleaded as party. They prayed for impleading them as party to the suit. The first party filed objection against the applications of third parties for impleading them on the ground that the said persons had got no locus-standi and the applications were moved in collusion with the second party and the applications were not maintainable. The proceedings thereafter remained pending for a long time and vide order dated 13.12.1988, the learned Magistrate rejected the applications of third parties. Another application for dropping proceedings under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. dated 25.11.1983 was also rejected.
3. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order dated 13.12.1988 the present revision has been fled by the revisionists. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the application for impleadment paper No. C-24/1 and C-24/5 and directed the lower court to implead the applicants (who had moved the applications) as opposite parties in the case. Aggrieved with that judgment and order, Subhash Chand Gupta and his wife Munni Devi filed this revision.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned A.G.A. None appeared on behalf of other opposite parties though they were represented through counsel.
5. Learned Counsel for the revisionists made only one submission before me that in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the parties whose names find place in the police report or who have been arrayed as opposite parties in the application under Section 145 Cr.P.C., are entitled to be heard in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and no other person can be impleaded in such a case.
6. Learned A.G.A., however, refuted this contention and submitted that the court has jurisdiction to implead the parties concerned in such disputes as provided under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
7. The question whether those persons who have filed application for being impleaded in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should be permitted to to be impleaded as such or not, depends upon interpretation of the words "parties concerned in such dispute" appearing in Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. This question of impleadment of other persons who moved application for their impleadment as parties in the case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was considered by this court in the case of Ganga Singh v. Mohd. Shah Khan 1976 Crl.
L.J. 357 and it was laid down by this court that where the Magistrate after issuance of the preliminary order, gets information that some other person to whom the order was not originally directed is also concerned in the dispute, the impleading of such a person as a party cannot be said to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The impleadment cannot be deemed to have changed the nature or character of the preliminary order. Further, it is also in the interest of justice and necessary for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings to let every person who claims to be concerned in the dispute to have an opportunity to" put forward his claim. Mere delay in applying for impleadment cannot be a ground to refuse impleadment.
8. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate reveals that he had rejected the application for impleadment mainly on the ground of delay in disposal of the case but, as observed in the above ruling, mere delay in filing application for impleadment can not be a ground to refuse impleadment.
9. It was next submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that Surendra Pal and Ors. had already moved application on 28.1.84 claiming themselves to be in possession of the disputed land and their application for impleadment had been rejected by the Magistrate on 23.3.84 making observation that if they want, they can move for inquiry by Tahsildar on the point of their so called possession in the disputed land, and if such application is moved, that can be considered. Learned Counsel for the revisionists submitted that after passing of this order dated 23.3.84 the aforesaid persons did not move application for inquiry by Tahsildar and moved fresh application for impleadment on 15.12.1987 when the parties' evidence was over and so these applications were not maintainable. It however appears that a report was obtained from the Naib Tahsildar-I Meerut on 29.9.1988 and he had submitted three lists; one of 135 persons who were residing on the spot and Anr. list of 39 persons who were not residing on the spot and 3rd list of 110 persons who were residing on spot and had not been impleaded in the case (as referred to in the order of the learned Magistrate dated 13.12.1988.)
10. Under these circumstances it appears that there were persons who had allegedly been in possession of the property on the spot but since they had not been impleaded in the case, it was necessary to implead them so that the controversy between the parties may be finally settled and the learned Sessions Judge committed no legal error by directing the Magistrate to implead the applicants arid to decide the case after providing opportunity of hearing to them. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality and thus the revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
11. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.