The court emphasized the purpose of Section 145 Cr.P.C. to prevent a breach of peace and highlighted the need to avoid using criminal courts for settling civil disputes.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. The instant petition is filed by the petitioner/Trust through its AR Mr. J.N. Purthy- Secretary of the petitioner/Trust under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-3, South, Saket Court, New Delhi in criminal revision petition No. 03/15 titled as Shree Adya Katyani Shaktipeeth Mandir Trust vs. The State & Ors wherein the revision petition qua against the order dated 19.11.2014 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Saket), District-South, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in case No. 034/SDM/2013 was dismissed.

2. The brief facts stated are that initially a complaint on 15.03.2007 was made by Shri Sumer Saini, Chief Security Officer, Chattarpur Mandir Trust, to the SHO Mehrauli alleging therein that a piece of land/plot in Khasra No. 61, Village Chattarpur, New Delhi was under the continuous possession of the petitioner/Trust and on the said plot the watchmans of the temple- Om Prakash, Pankaj Sahu and Santosh Kumar Sahu lived in the jhuggies with their families and on 15.03.2007, the said plot was illegally encroached upon by the respondents-(Nos. 2-5). An inquiry pertaining to the aforesaid complaint was carried out by the police and the police found a plot of about 704 yards there with some tin sheds. The photographs of the spot were taken and thereafter the respondents Mohd Ayub and Mohd Salim came forward and told the police officer that the said property is part of Khasra No. 61 and the entire Khasra No. 61 is the property of the Delhi Waqf Board which is about 24 bighas and this plot measuring 704 yards has been taken on rent by them from the Delhi Waqf Board to this effect they showed three separate rent deeds dated 06.02.2006. Both the parties were making their claims on the said plot/property to be theirs. Subsequently, a Kalandra bearing DD No. 42B dated 21.03.2007 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the S.H.O. police station Mehrauli to the learned SDM, Saket. The learned SDM after going through the contents of the report submitted by the SHO and on being satisfied passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. dated 13.03.2007. Thereafter, the learned SDM after examining all the contentions and records placed before him passed an order dated 19.11.2014 in case No. 034/SDM/SAKET/2013 wherein the respondent No.5 was found to be in possession of the said land forming part of Khasra No. 61, Village Chattarpur, New Delhi entitling him to retain such possession until ousted by due course of law.

3. Aggrieved from the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned SDM the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the learned ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act):CBI-03, Saket Court, New Delhi and the learned ASJ dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 30.03.2014 being devoid of merits.

Hence the present petition .

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned SDM Court instead of deciding the factum of possession virtually decided the title itself. He further submitted that the order dated 22.11.2014 passed by the learned SDM Court was challenged in revision and the learned Sessions Court vide impugned order dated 30.03.2015 dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned SDM after taking cognizance under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. talks about the status quo being ordered on 13.04.2007 whereas, the order passed by the learned SDM on 13.04.2007 it does not talk about the maintaining of status quo ordered to the parties by the learned SDM. Further it reveals that the preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. is dated 13.04.2007 and the final order is dated 19.11.2014 which talks about several hearings given to the petitioner but the order sheet does not say so. Ther