JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for non-petitioner No. 1 nobody appeared on behalf of non-petitioner 2. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.7.1996 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar), Phalodi in misc. Case No. 5/96 whereby the learned Tehsildar attached the property in dispute under Section 146 Cr.PC. 3. The grounds on which the order dated 17.7.1996 has been challenged are (a) that no preliminary order, as required by sub-section (1) of Section 143 Cr.PC. was drawn by the Tehsildar before directing the attachment of property in dispute and (b) that the attachment of the property under sub-section (1) of Section 146 Cr.PC. was not proper in view of the fact that the petitioner Bheek Singh was in possession of the land in dispute. 4. A perusal of the record of the misc. case No.5/96 shows that on 17.7.1996 the Officer-incharge of the Police Station Bhojasar submitted a complaint in writing before the Tehsildar, Phalodi. In that complaint it was alleged that agricultural fields of Khasara Nos. 308 and 802 were in two parts. 1/2of the field was in possession of Bheek Singh and the remaining 1/2was in possession of Gomad Ram but in the revenue record the whole of the fields were entered in the name of Meghwal's. It was further alleged that Meghwals made an attempt to take possession of the fields which were in possession of Bheek Singh and as a consequence of that attempt a quarrel between the parties occurred and injuries were caused. Regarding that incident FIR No. 77/96 was registered, it was also mentioned that a case No.83/96 was also registered at the instance of riots and that there was an apprehension of breach of peace because the Meghwal's wanted to take possession of the fields which were is possession of Bheek Singh. The learned Tehsildar registered a case under Section 145 Cr.P.C., took into consideration the circumstances alleged in the complaint filed by the officer-incharge of the Police Station Bhojasar and came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case of apprehension of breach of peace. He, therefore, directed the attachment of 1/2northern portion of the agricultural fields No.388 and 802 and appointed the Officer-incharge of the Police Station, Bhojasar the receiver of the above mentioned fields. He, therefore, directed the attachment of 1/2northern portion of the agricultural fields No.388 and 802 and appointed the Officer-incharge of the Police Station, Bhojasar the receiver of the above mentioned fields. It was further ordered that the receiver shall look after the crops which was standing in the fields. Notices were also ordered to be issued to the non-applicants namely Bheek Singh and Gomad Ram. 5. On 25.7.1996 the application dated 20.7.1996 submitted by the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Bhojasar was considered by the Tehsildar. In his application dated 20.7.1996 the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Bhojasar stated that on 18th, 19th and 20th July, 1996 he went to the fields in dispute and found that there were Two huts surrounded by fencing and in those huts the mother and wife of Bheek Singh were residing and that they had no other place to reside. A prayer was, therefore, made that, an amendment should be made in the order of attachment, excluding the portions described at No. 1,2,3 and 4 in the application from the attachment. The learned Tehsildar after considering the application dated 20.7.1996 made an amendment in the earlier order dated 17.7.1996 and excluded the portions mentioned in the above application for attachment. 6. I have carefully considered the complaint dated 17.7.1996 and 20.7.1996 submitted by the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Bhojasar, these documents clearly show that on 1/2northern side portion of the fields bearing Khasara No.388 and 802 Bheek Singh (petitioner) was in possession and his residential huts were also situated in the field which was in his possession, in view of this circumstance, no case for attachment of that portion of the fields which was in possession of Bheek Singh was made out under Section 146 Cr.P.C. I, therefore, find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of attachment passed on 17.7.1996 was not justified in view of the facts of the case and amounted to abuse of the process of the Court. 7. For reasons mentioned above the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 17.7.1996 and 25.7.1996 passed by the Tehsildar, Phalodi in criminal misc. case No.5/96 are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. For reasons mentioned above the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 17.7.1996 and 25.7.1996 passed by the Tehsildar, Phalodi in criminal misc. case No.5/96 are hereby quashed and set aside. It is further directed that the property which was taken in possession by the receiver in pursuance of the order passed by the Tehsildar, Phalodi shall be restored to the petitioner Bheek Singh. 8. The learned Tehsildar, Phalodi is further directed to re-consider the complaint filed before him and to find out if case for initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.RC. is made out and to dispose of the complaint according to law. 9. The petition is decided accordingly.> Petition allowed. *******