IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.387 of 2009 BIRENDRA YADAV S/O YADUNANDAN YADAV --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. PUNAM SINGH OFFICER IN CHARGE BARAHAT, JAMUI 3. RAVINDRA PRASAD A.S.I. P.S. BARAHAT, DIST. JAMUI --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Mahto, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02 12.10.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner filed a complaint alleging therein that the police officers/police personnels illegally raided his house and confiscated certain articles belonging to him. The aforesaid complaint has been considered and rejected by learned Magistrate in terms of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟). Learned Magistrate has found and recorded that the police officials obtained the processes from the said Court under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code and same were executed. In that context, learned Magistrate while rejecting the complaint observed as under:- “… If the complainant Birendra Yadav was any grievance against the attachment made by S.H.O. Smt. Punam Sinha, he should have filed a petition u/s 84 Cr. P.C. Section 84 Cr.P.C. says, “ if any claim is preferred to, or objection made to the attachment of any property attached under section 83, within six months from the date of such attachment, by any person other than the proclaimed person, on the ground that the claimant or objector has an interest in such property, and that such interest is not liable to attachment under section 83, the claim or objection shall be inquired into, and may be allowed or disallowed in whole or in part.”. But complainant Birendra Yadav despite filing petition u/s 84 Cr.P.C., he filed this complaint ( 1475 C/07) allegation as mentioned in the complaint petition against S.H.O. smt. Punam Sinha, Barnat P.S. and others.” There is no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)