WRIT PETITION 03 of 2009 on 8 July 2009

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barhi Sub-Division, At + P.O. + P.S. - Barhi, District – Hazaribag.3. Anchal Adhikari, Barhi Development Block, At + P.O. + P.S. - Barhi, District – Hazaribag.

4. Chhotan Sonar.

5. Pradeep Sonar.6. Kartik Sonar @ Katku Sonar.

7. Munna Sonar.Sl. No. 4 to 7 are all sons of late Hari Charan Sonar, are all residents of village – Barhi, P.O. and P.S. - Barhi, District – Hazaribag.

… Respondents

…

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR.

…

For the Petitioner : - Mr. Bijaya Kishore Prasad, Advocate.For the Respondent: - Mr. Vikash Kumar, J.C. to A.G.

Mr. Pradip Gangopadhyay, Advocate.

…

In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.07.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barhi, Hazaribagh in Case No. 03 of 2009, whereby he attached the land in dispute under Section 146 (1) of the Cr.P.C. and appointed Circle Officer, Barhi as Receiver. Petitioner further challenged the order dated 14.05.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in Case No. 09 of 2009, whereby he converted the proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.

It appears that against the order dated 14.05.2009, petitioner has filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh vide Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2009. The aforesaid criminal revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaibagh, vide order dated 22.09.2010 on the ground that the same is not maintainable because it was filed against an interlocutory order. It is worth mentioning that the petitioner has not challenged the aforesaid order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal sunil/

Revision No. 136 of 2009. Thus, the same has become final. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ application, so far it relates to the order dated 14.05.2009, is not maintainable in view of the provision contained under Section 397 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, once the above order become final, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the same again and again. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 14.05.2009 cannot be entertained and the same is rejected.

The order dated 08.07.2009, by which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barhi has attached the land in dispute and appointed Circle Officer, Barhi as Receiver, is revisable, therefore, on the ground of alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application. Accordingly the writ application is dismissed.

(Prashant Kumar, J.)