Umeshwar Pandey, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) In this petition, the order dated 1.4.2000 passed by the sub Divisional Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar has been challenged. As per the material made available by the petitioner before this Court it is evident that the Magistrate is seized with a matter under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in which the preliminary order has been passed. An attachment order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. dated 18.2.2005 was also passed. In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, the said attachment order passed by the Magistrate has been stayed. The stay order was communicated to said court vide Annexure-2 by the petitioner on which a direction was given by the Sub divisional Magistrate to the Station Officer of the concerned police station that the petitioner and his brother have half and half share in the property in dispute and, therefore, looking to the law and order situation the standing crops be harvested and distributed half among the two brothers.
(3.) The learned counsel by challenging the aforesaid order of the magistrate submits that this order is incompetent and he cannot give a direction of such nature except as provided under Sub-section (8) of Section 145 Cr.P.C.;