Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Mahaveer Surana S/o Shri Sidhraj Surana – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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 partie
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.
The pendency of a civil suit does not oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to act under Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code in case of apprehension of breach of peace, and the orde....
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
