The SDM retains the jurisdiction to pass incidental orders even after dropping the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and the order to restore status quo ante by allowing repair/reconstruction of the wall was within the SDM's jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed praying for quashing of the judgment dated 28.08.2023, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South District Saket, New Delhi has dismissed the CRL. REV. P. 248/2021 filed by the petitioner.

2. A criminal revision had been preferred by the present petitioner against the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the learned SDM, Mehrauli under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent herein.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the following direction given by the SDM in his order dated 16.12.2021:

"The case may be close be with direction to both the parties to maintain peace and tranquillity also the complainant may be allowed to repair/reconstruct the damaged wall and any supporting structure for safety of his personal property. The complainant is also allowed for installing CCTV camera."

4. Referring to the above quoted direction, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that passing of such a direction is beyond the purview of the SDM's jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Elaborating further, he invites the attention of the court to the observations recorded in the order of the SDM to the effect that dispute was civil in nature and the parties have equally efficacious remedies before the civil court and the matter does not involve any further threat to public peace and tranquillity, therefore, the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC were dropped.

5. He submits that as there was no further threat to public peace and tranquillity and the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were dropped by the learned SDM, therefore, the learned SDM could not have gone ahead to pass the order allowing the respondent to repair/reconstruct the damaged wall and any supporting structure. He submits that breach of peace is sine qua non for passing any order under Section 145 CrPC.

6. He further submits that against the order of SDM the petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision. The revisional court vide impugned order dated 28.08.2023 observed that the direction to allow installation of CCTV camera was not justified as it appears that no such camera was installed there before. However, as regard the respondent being allowed to repair/reconstruct the damaged wall and supporting structure, no illegality was found in the same by the revisional court.

7. He submits that the revisional court failed to appreciate that the impugned direction does not fall within the purview of Section 145 Cr.P.C. He relies upon the decision of this court in Jagdish Gandhi & Anr. Vs. State & Anr., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1134 to contend that in order to take preventive action under Section 145 Cr.P.C. two essential conditions must be satisfied viz., (i) there must be dispute relating to land or other objects mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. and (ii) the dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace. He also relies upon the decision of Allahabad High Court in Mela Ram Vs. Sadhu Ram in CRL REV No. 805/1980 decided on 25.09.1980.

8. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior advocate, appearing for the respondent/complainant on advance notice, invites the attention of the court to order dated 26.08.2020 passed by learned SDM under Section 145 Cr.P.C. to contend that learned SDM had ordered to stop any construction activity on the land in question and directed both the parties to maintain status quo on the said land till further orders.

9. He has handed over a compilation of various orders and proceedings, which is taken on record. Referring to general dairy entry dated 28.08.2020 made by the police, he submits that the respondent had called the police to inform that the wall of their house has been broken and a gate was being installed. The police official who attended the call visited the site and found that the petitioner has violated the order of status quo of SDM