By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to set aside the order dated 02.07.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar Untari, Garhwa in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar Untari, Garhwa has set aside the order dated 13.02.2023, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Untari, Shri Banshidhar Nagar in connection with Misc. Case No. 59 of 2018 even though the said order was an interlocutory order.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Untari, Shri Bansidhar Nagar vide order dated 13.02.2023 passed in Misc. Case No. 59 of 2018 in exercise of his power under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. appointed the Officer-in-Charge of Dhurki Police Station as the receiver in respect of the disputed land after attachment of the same. The opposite party no.2 herein filed Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2023. The petitioner was the respondent no.2 of the said criminal revision. The petitioner raised the specific plea that the said revision is not maintainable as the same has been directed against an interlocutory order in view of the prohibition contained in Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Without considering the said contention of the petitioner and without addressing the said issue, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar Untari, Garhwa went on to allow the said criminal revision.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Division Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bechan Mahto Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1987 Supreme (Pat) 143 that therein the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Patna High Court considering the principles of law and precedents, concluded as under in para - 20 of the said Judgment; which reads as under:-

“20. To finally conclude, both on principle and precedent, the answer to the question posed at the very outset is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that an order of attachment of an immovable property under Sec. 146(1) of the Code is interlocutory in nature within the meaning of Sec. 397(2) of the Code and consequently no revision against the same is maintainable.” (Emphasis supplied)

5. It is then submitted that since it is a settled principle of law that an order of attachment of immovable property under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being interlocutory in nature within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, consequently no revision against the same is maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law having been passed in violation of the said settled principle of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that since a substantial right of the petitioner has been affected without following the due process of law, the revision was maintainable and no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar Untari, Garhwa in allowing the criminal revision. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bechan Mahto Vs. State of Bihar (supra) that order of attachment of an immovable property under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being interlocutory in nature, no revision against t