JUDGMENT : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. 1. The defect pointed out by the Registry of filing type copy of the order dated 26.12.2014 is waived. 2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court'), whereby the Criminal Revision Petition No.1/2015 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has filed the said revision petition being aggrieved with the order dated 26.12.2014 passed by the Additional District Magistrate City, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'), whereby the trial court, in the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., has ordered for attaching the property in question and appointed SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, District Bikaner as receiver. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact the trial court, without ascertaining any danger for the peace and without ascertaining emergency situation, has passed the order for attaching the property in question in a very casual manner. It is also argued that the revisional court has also not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and erred in confronting the order passed by the trial court. 4. Per contra, learned Pubic Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have supported the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. The trial court in its order dated 26.12.2014 has specifically observed that as more than two parties are claiming title over the disputed land and making all attempts to take possession of the disputed land, therefore, it is necessary to attach the said property and appoint receiver, otherwise the peace of the area will be disturbed. 7. The revisional court has discussed the situation on the ground in detail and found that when title of the parties is not clear and at least three parties are claiming title over it and attempting to take possession of the disputed land, the revisional court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the orders impugned passed by the courts below, I don't find any case for interference in the same. 9. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the orders impugned passed by the courts below, I don't find any case for interference in the same. 9. Moreover, though this criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr. P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred under Sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr. P.C. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.