Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Mahaveer Surana S/o Shri Sidhraj Surana - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 573/2015
Decided On : 09-04-2025
Parties: Mahaveer Surana (Petitioner) vs. State of Rajasthan (Respondent). (!) (!)
Proceedings: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders dated 12.10.2012 by Additional District Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur, and 23.02.2015 by Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings over disputed plots in Gram Suthla, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur. (!) (!)
Facts: Petitioners claimed purchase via registered sale deeds in 1982-83 and peaceful possession. Complaint filed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 23.04.1988 due to threats by respondents, who relied on a 1974 receipt. ADM attached land, appointed receiver, later revoked attachment, and directed possession to respondents; upheld by revisional court. (!)
Key Legal Principles: - Criminal courts must refrain from intervening in civil property disputes unless emergent circumstances show imminent danger of breach of peace, supported by cogent material, not vague assertions. Proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. require satisfaction of actual possession dispute and threat to public peace/tranquility. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Under Section 145 Cr.P.C., Magistrate decides only fact of possession at time of preliminary order, without adjudicating title/rights; may treat forcibly dispossessed party as in possession if within 2 months prior. Order is final subject to civil eviction. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., attachment and receiver appointment possible in emergencies, if no clear possession, or inability to decide possession, until civil court determines rights; withdrawable if no longer breach risk. Civil court receiver supersedes criminal one. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Magistrate must conduct preliminary inquiry under Section 145(1) before Section 146(1) action, recording satisfaction of emergent breach risk; cannot adjudicate title or right to possession—that is for civil/revenue courts. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Parallel Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings unwarranted if civil suit on title/possession pending, as it duplicates efforts, wastes resources, and civil orders bind criminal courts. (!) (!) (!)
Court's Findings: Lower court orders legally sound, properly analyzed facts/witnesses; no emergent circumstances justified criminal intervention amid civil proceedings. (!) (!)
Order :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which upheld the earlier order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Additional District Collector-cum- Additional District Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the dispute relates to plots No. 1 to 5 situated at Gram Suthla, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur, which the petitioners claim to have purchased through registered sale deeds in 1982-83 and have been in peaceful possession since then. A complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner on 23.04.1988 following threats and interference by respondents, and subsequently, the ADM attached the disputed land and appointed a receiver. The respondents, however, claim ownership on the basis of a 1974 receipt. Then, ADM later revoked the attachment and directed possession to be handed over to the respondents, which was affirmed by the Sessions Court, prompting the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State as well as perused the material available on record.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and minutely going through the orders dated 12.10.2012 passed by ADM No.3, Jodhpur and 23.02.2015 passed by Revisional Court, this Court finds that the order passed by ADM and Revisional Court are legally sound. It has been observed that the order passed by ADM and Revisional Judge has appropriately analyzed the facts and have taken proper statements of each and every witness which establish that when a matter is of such a nature which falls within the jurisdiction of civil courts, ordinarily criminal courts should refrain from intervening and should not appoint a receiver unless emergent circumstances desired by law are present.
5. It is imperative to discuss the precedents set by Hon’ble the Supreme Court concerning Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. and to fully comprehend the legal position, it is necessary to first reproduce these provisions, which are provided below for ready reference:-
145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace.—
(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. (2) For the purposes of this section, the expression “land or water” includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property.
(3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute.
(4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, persue the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed
Criminal courts should refrain from intervening in civil disputes unless there is an imminent danger of breach of peace, especially when civil proceedings are already pending.
Criminal courts should not intervene in property disputes already subject to civil litigation unless there is an imminent threat to public peace.
Proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. require a serious question of possession and cannot continue if civil proceedings regarding the same property are pending.
The Executive Magistrate cannot adjudicate ownership or title; only the question of possession is within their jurisdiction under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C.
Executive Magistrate must ascertain actual possession and genuine threat to peace before initiating proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C.
The Court emphasized that vague assertions of breach of peace are insufficient for an attachment order under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C.
The Executive Magistrate must determine actual possession and cannot adjudicate rights; attachment of property requires emergent circumstances and imminent danger of breach of peace.
The court clarified that property disputes under Cr.P.C. require clear evidence of imminent danger of breach of peace before any attachment or receiver orders can be made.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
