JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad, Learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhananjai Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. On being satisfied with the police report that proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. should be initiated relating to the plots referred to in the police report the S. D. M. Soraon instituted proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. which became subject-matter of case No. 37 of 1991 of his court. Subsequently, however, an order has been passed under Section 146 Cr. P.C. on 11-2-1991 which has been challenged in this proceeding under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 3. It is not disputed that the applicant Ram Autar and opposite parties Ram Lal, Babu Lal, Saliq Ram and Jeot Lal are brothers. From the allegations it appears, subject to what may be determined by the competent court, that the property may have been ancestral. The questions on merits about the continuance or otherwise of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. are not relevant here and are not being decided. The Magistrate will decide those questions in accordance with law at the appropriate stage. 4. The short question agreed is that the order under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. was without any basis inasmuch as the Magistrate has not referred to even the date of police report nor has he said as to why the land should be attached. It is argued that if the apprehension was so genuine that it required attachment of the land in dispute, nothing prevented the police from informing the Magistrate right at the beginning and since initially the Magistrate has himself not passed the order under Section 146 (I) Cr. P. C. there was neither any need nor justification nor material to pass an order of attachment under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. after the commencement of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. long ago. 5. Sri Dhananjai Prasad has, however, argued that since the Magistrate has written in the order that he is satisfied from the police report it should be taken to be enough observation entitling him to pass the order of attachment. This argument is not tenable in this case because as stated above, initially the Magistrate had hin self not passed any order under Section 146 kI) Cr. This argument is not tenable in this case because as stated above, initially the Magistrate had hin self not passed any order under Section 146 kI) Cr. P. C. and had called the parties to produce evidence about possession in his court. That being so, the order of attachment was not necessary. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion this application succeeds and is allowed. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. pending in the court of S. D M. Soram will go on in accordance with law but the order of attachment dated 11-2-1991 is quashed. If the position so requires, the Magistrate will be fully empowered to take steps under Section 107/116 Cr. P. C.