JUDGMENT
R.N. Biswal, J.
1. This Crl. Misc Case arises out of a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (In short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), challenging the order dated 12.5.2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi, in Criminal Revision No. 5 of 2004 confirming the order dated 9.2.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate., Parlakhemundi in Misc. Case No. 240 of 1990, in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner was not a party in either of the Courts below. Opposite party No. 1 was the first party and opposite party No. 2 was the second party before the S.D.M., Parlakhemundi. The first party initiated a proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C. since there was a dispute with regard to the appointment of Amod Kumar Pani, the present opposite party No. 2 as the Paster in the Baptist Church at village Jhalarsingh between the two groups of the same village. It was prayed therein to allow the present opposite party No. 3, Utkal Baptist Mandali Sammilani, to conduct and regulate the offering of prayer as well to take over the management of the said Church from the petitioner (opposite party No. 1). Subsequently the proceeding was converted to a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. In an interim order the S.D.M. directed the petitioner-opposite party No. 1 to hand over the management of the Church to the present opposite party No. 3. When the matter stood thus, the present opposite party No. 3 without leave of the Court appointed one Lohit Singh as Paster. The S.D.M. dropped the proceeding on 7.9.1999 and directed Utkal Baptist Mandali Sammilani (present opp. Party No. 3) to deliver possession of the disputed Church to the second party (opposite party No. 2). Lohit Singh was also directed to hand over the keys of the said Church to the second party within one month.
3. Being aggrieved with said, order Lohit Singh preferred Crl. Misc. Case No. 4930/01 before this Court which was dismissed as not pressed. On 9.2.2004 the S.D.M. again ordered that Utkal Baptist Mandali Sammilani shall deliver possession of the disputed Church to the second party. Lohit Singh was also directed to hand over the keys of the Church to the second party within fifteen days.
4. Being aggrieved with this order, Samson Korada preferred Crl. Revision, before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi. Admittedly, the petitioner therein was not a party before the S.D.M. The Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the revision holding that to set aside the impugned order is in effect would be setting aside the order dated 7.9.1999 which had already reached finality and that the petitioner had no locus stand to challenge the impugned order.
5. This order and the order dated 9.2.2004 passed by the S.D.M. have been assailed in this Crl. Misc. Case as mentioned earlier.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the petitioner not being a party before the S.D.M. he had no locus standi to prefer revision before the Sessions Judge. So the CRLMC should be dismissed. Sessions Judge can suo motu initiate a revision in terms of Section 397, Cr.P.C. When a third party files a revision against any order it would mean that he brought to the notice of the revisional Court about the illegality committed by the original Court. So only because a third party preferred the revision the same cannot be dismissed. As such, I am not in one with the submission of learned counsel for the opposite parties in this regard.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the S.D.M. dropped the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C, he ought not to have directed the Utkal Baptist Mandali Sammilani (present opp. party No. 3) to deliver possession of the Church to the second party and that Lohit Singh ought not have been directed to hand over the keys of the said Church to the second party. In an interim order the first party was directed to hand over the management of the church in question to Utkal Baptist Mandali Sammilani. Without the leave of the Court the said Sammilani appointed Lohit Singh as Paster. When the proceeding was dropped, it was necessary for the Magistrate to restore status quo ante. So it cannot be said that he has committed any illegality. The order dated 7.9.1999 having not been challenged reached its finality. So the revisional Court has rightly held that allowing the revision, in effect would have been setting aside the order dated 7.9.1999.
7. The extraordinary power conferred upon this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised with care and circumspection to give effect to an order of the Court, to prevent the abuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The impugned order cannot be interfered with on any of these grounds.
In the result, the CRLMC stands dismissed.