SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1365

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
 
Mr. Sayyad Ayaz Ali, s/o Magdum Ali and Anr. – Applicants
Versus
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagpur City, Nagpur and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Application (APL) No.357 of 2024
Decided On : 24-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : Shri R.R. Vyas.
For the Respondents: Shri C.A. Lokhande, Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri P.P. Kothari.

The court ruled that maintaining status quo under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is justified to prevent a breach of public peace in ongoing land ownership disputes.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Quashing of order under Section 145 - Application filed for quashing order due to lack of hearing - Magnitude of natural justice highlighted as the applicant was not present during the proceeding - Magistrate's reliance on records and testimonies justified. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 22)

(B) Section 145 of the Code - Procedure for resolving land disputes - Magistrate acts to maintain peace and status quo where possession is disputed. (Paras 13, 20)

(C) Inherent jurisdiction of courts under Section 482 - No new power bestowed, limited to preventing abuse of process. (Paras 19, 21)

Facts of the case:
The applicants contested the order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which directed both parties to maintain status quo on disputed plots due to ongoing ownership and possession disputes. The applicants argued their possession and insufficient notice while opposing claims from co-owners.

Findings of Court:
Learned Magistrate acted correctly in maintaining status quo to prevent a breach of public peace, especially given the Supreme Court's ruling against the applicants' plaint.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicants were given a fair hearing and whether the proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate were justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of the applicant from proceedings does not necessarily violate natural justice, especially when adequate opportunity was provided to the present party.

Result: Application rejected.

Table of Content
1. application under section 482 for quashing. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on natural justice and possession. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
3. analysis of ownership and construction issues. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. requirements for notice and fair hearing. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. inherent jurisdiction under section 482 analysis. (Para 19 , 21)
6. decision based on likelihood of breach of peace. (Para 20 , 22)
7. application rejected. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 29.12.2023 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate at Nagpur in Criminal Case No.5/2022 under Section 145 of the Code.

2. Facts giving rise to the application are as under:

The Assistant Police Inspector of Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur had submitted a report to the Special Executive Magistrate/Sub Division Officer, Nagpur City on 5.9.2023 contending that plot Nos.23A , 24, 25 to 29, and 34 and 35A situated at Shashikant Cooperative Society were purchased by one Prakash Goyal, Om Mittal, and present applicants in the year 2012 from Shri Shashikant Bodad, the President of the said Housing Society. The plot No.23A and 24 were owned by Prakash Goyal and Om Mittal and the applicants had no concern with those plots as partition already took place between them as to the distribution of the properties. After partition, plot Nos.23A and 24 are already sold by Om Mittal and Prakash Goyal to one Shyamkumar Daulat Barve. At present, both plots are disputed properties and the dispute is pending in the civil court at Nagpur. As per the partition deed, plot Nos.25, 26, and 27 were allotted to the share of Prakash Goyal admeasuring 4739 feet. Whereas, plot Nos.28, 29, and 34 admeasuring 4739 feet were allotted to Om Mittal. Applicant Ayaz Ali got plot No.35 admeasuring 4556 square feet. The said partition was effected on 18.10.2012. In the year 2014, Prakash Goyal and Om Mittal entered into an agreement to sale the said plots. The dispute as to the ownership of the disputed plots was pending in the civil court. The vendor of the non-applicant No.3 filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code which gone upto the Supreme Court and in the year 2021 the Supreme court dismissed the proceeding filed by the applicants and the plaint of the applicants was rejected. Despite the plaint was rejected, the applicants constructed illegal construction on the disputed plots which was subsequently demolished by the Nagpur Improvement Trust in October 2024. After rejection of the plaint by the Supreme Court, the property became encroachment free. Both co-owners Prakash Goyal and Om Mittal visited the site of the plots for taking possession which was resisted by the wife of the applicant and, therefore, Shyam Kumar Daulat Barve filed an application contending that she is causing nuisance and restraining him from taking possession. The non-applicant No.2 Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur took cognizance and recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses and submitted report. The statement of the applicant No.2 was recorded. On satisfaction, the Police Inspector of the said police station submitted report to the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer has issued notices to the applicants as well as non-applicant No.3 and after due enquiry, initiated the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the impugned order, under Section 145 of the Code, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the present application is filed for quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 of the Code.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for respective parties.

4. Learned counsel Shri R.R.Vyas for the applicants submitted that this application is mainly on the ground that without hearing the applicant No.1, the said order was pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top