IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.52380 of 2008 1. Tarun Kumar @ Lal Yadav son of Sudist Narayan Yadav. 2. Sudist Narayan Yadav son of Mouje Lal Yadav. 3. Kunti Devi wife of Sudist Narayan Yadav. 4. Punam Devi wife of Shri Tarun Kumar Yadav @ Lal Yadav. All are residents of Village-Hariyat, Tole-Milki, P.S.-Bahera, District-Darbhanga. .........2nd Party/Petitioner/Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Nilambar Sada son of late Ram Narayan Sada, resident of Village-Mokki, P.S.-Bahera, O.P.-Alinagar, District-Darbhanga. ..........1st Party/Opposite Party/Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Bhusneshwar Prasad, Adv. M/s Ritu Shekhar, Adv. For State :- Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. 02 28.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioners have approached this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 16.09.2008, passed in Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Darbhanga, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed this criminal revision preferred by the second party/petitioners against the order dated 07.06.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Benipur in M.R. No. 170 of 2007 under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, regarding attachment of the property which was part of the dispute. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that the petitioners had purchased the land in dispute, over which the two rooms is also situated but in spite of that the learned Magistrate has illegally attached the land in dispute ignoring the fact 2 that two rooms are also situated over the land in dispute and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also not considered the same and illegally dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2006 vide order dated 16.09.2008 as preferred by the second party/petitioners against the order dated 07.06.2006. It appears from order dated 07.06.2006, passed in M.R. No. 170 of 2006, in the proceeding under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Benipur, on receiving the report bearing D.R. No. 237 of 2006 of Officer-In- Charge of Alinagar, arrived at conclusion that there is serious tension in respect of land in dispute and situation is that the second party are adamant for the construction over the land in dispute and accordingly the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Benipur, passed the order to attach the property in dispute under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code and in Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2006 as preferred by the second party/petitioners against the attachment order dated 07.06.2006, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Darbhanga has discussed in detail the reason and has arrived at conclusion that there is no reason for interference with the same in the revisional jurisdiction. From bare reading of section 145 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, it appears that 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 3 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. After passing the order under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate taking into consideration the emergent situation may also attach land in dispute under section 146 of Criminal Procedure Code. In section 145 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, “land or water” has been expressed as buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property” In view of the aforesaid facts and the provisions of law, I find no illegality in the order impugned dated 16.09.2008, passed in Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2006 as preferred by the second party/petitioners against the attachment order dated 07.06.2006, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Benipur in proceeding under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code in M.R. No. 170 of 2006 for interference in inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. Safik (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)