JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. whereby the property was attached and the Tehsildar, Chaksu was appointed as Receiver. The petitioners have challenged this order before this court in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC. 2. I am of the view that the aforesaid order is a revisable order and if at all the petitioners were aggrieved the petitioners ought to have filed a revision petition against the said order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon a decision of this court in the case of Sultan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006 (1) RCC 546 has submitted that the learned Single Judge of this court has held that the order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. is not revisable being an inter-locutory order.So far as the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it may be stated here that a Division Bench of this court in the case of Sitaram v. Ghasiram, reported in 1980 RLW 155 in para 9 has categorically stated that the revision petition was maintainable, as it was an order of attachment under sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the New Code, which, in his opinion, was an interlocutory order. We hold that the revision was maintainable before the learned Sessions Judge." 4. The above decision of the Division Bench of this Court does not appears to have referred before the learned Single Judge in Sultan Singh's case. Since a Division Bench of this court has held that the order of attachment under Section 146(2) Cr.PC. passed by the learned Magistrate is not an interlocutory order and has held that the revision against the said order is maintainable and not barred by Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not well founded. 5. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves to be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this court to the fact that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.02.2007 under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. by filing a revision but the petitioner for the reasons best known to him withdrew the same. In view of the above, the petitioner having withdrawn the revision petition unconditionally is also not entitled to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I find that this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. is not maintainable and consequently, the same is dismissed as there was available to the petitioner a statutory remedy of revision/which was availed but withdrawn unconditionally, as such it is not a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Petition Dismissed. *******