Order of attachment of immovable property under Section 146(1) CrPC is an interlocutory order, barring revisional jurisdiction.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Nagar Untari, passed an order on 13.02.2023 in Misc. Case No. 59 of 2018, attaching disputed immovable property and appointing the Officer-in-Charge of Dhurki Police Station as receiver under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C.

Opposite Party No. 2 challenged this attachment order via Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2023 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Nagar Untari.

The Petitioner (Respondent No. 2 in the revision) raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision, arguing that an attachment order is interlocutory and thus barred by Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C.

The ASJ allowed the revision and set aside the SDM’s order without addressing the maintainability issue.

The Petitioner subsequently moved the High Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, seeking to quash the ASJ's order.

1. Whether an order of attachment of immovable property passed under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order, thereby barring a criminal revision under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C.

The Court applied the prohibition contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that revisional powers shall not be exercised in relation to interlocutory orders.

It heavily relied on the Division Bench precedent of the Patna High Court in Bechan Mahto v. State of Bihar (1987), which categorically established that an order of attachment of immovable property under Section 146(1) is interlocutory in nature within the meaning of Section 397(2) and is not subject to revision.

The High Court observed that the learned ASJ failed to address the specific plea of maintainability raised by the petitioner.

Evaluating the legal nature of the SDM's order, the Court followed the settled principle that attachment of property under Section 146(1) is a temporary measure and does not decide the final rights of the parties, characterizing it as strictly "interlocutory".

The Court found that the ASJ ignored established precedents and improperly exercised revisional jurisdiction in violation of the statutory bar under Section 397(2).

Consequently, even if the ASJ believed substantial rights were affected, the lack of jurisdiction to hear a revision against an interlocutory order rendered the impugned order legally unsustainable.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed, and set aside the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar Untari, in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2023.