IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.48553 of 2007 SANTOSH KUMAR @ AMARESH LAL, SON OF LATE RAMKISHUN PRASAD @ LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AKABARPUR, P.S. SANHO, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. …PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. ASHOK KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-AKBARPUR, P.S. SANHO, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. …OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 03. 23.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 19.06.2007, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Begusarai in Case No.97/06, whereby an order in terms of section 146(I) Cr.P.C. has been passed. Considering the emergency of the matter the land in dispute has been attached and the B.D.O., Sanho, Begusarai has been appointed as receiver. The petitioner who is the second party in the proceeding (case no.97/06), filed a criminal revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai, vide Cr. Revision No.181/07. The said matter was heard and dismissed by order 26.07.2007. Paragraph 3 of the said order reads thus: “In 1988 Cr. Law Journal 1426 Bechan Mahton and others versus State of Bihar and other the Hon’ble High Court, Patna in Division Bench judgement held that an order of attachment of the property u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C. is interlocutory in nature within the meaning of section 397(2) Cr.P.C. As such the impugned order is interlocutory in nature and accordingly the cr. Revision is dismissed at admission stage.” The order by which the proceeding under section 145 of - 2 - the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated between the parties is admittedly not under challenge. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the petitioner seeks to challenge an order which is interlocutory in nature. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )