Criminal courts should not intervene in property disputes already subject to civil litigation unless there is an imminent threat to public peace.

Order :

(FARJAND ALI, J.)

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali, Rajasthan whereby the revision petition preferred on behalf of the respondent has been allowed and the order passed by the learned executive Magistrate dated 26.05.2016 in Criminal Case No. 04/2016 passed under Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. for attachment of disputed property and for appointment of receiver has been quashed and set aside.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, representing the villagers of Guda-Kallan, filed a complaint with the SHO, Bagdi, Tehsil Sojat, alleging that a public well known as Ganwai Pichka (Bera), situated on Khasra Nos. 196, 197, and 198, was being illegally occupied by private respondents Panna Ram, Madan Lal, and Ratan Lal, who were unlawfully constructing on the public land. When villagers opposed the encroachment, the respondents allegedly resorted to threats and violence. Following the complaint, the SHO initiated proceedings under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. before the SDM, Sojat, who, by order dated 26.05.2016, attached the land and appointed the SHO as receiver of the property. By aggrieved from this, the private respondents filed a Criminal Revision No. 24/2016 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat, who allowed the revision on 27.10.2016, holding that the dispute had been ongoing for 43 years and was already subject to civil litigation and therefore, making interference under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. was unwarranted. The petitioner contends that the revisional order was erroneous and that the order of learned SDM regarding attachment was necessary to prevent law and order issues. The petitioner finding no alternative remedy has approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for relief.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned SDM, Sojat, rightly exercised jurisdiction under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. to prevent the encroachment of public land by respondents No. 2 to 4, based on a police investigation report. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge committed a serious error in setting aside the SDM’s order, warranting interference by this Court. He further argued that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by treating the matter as if a final determination had been made, despite the fact that the SDM’s inquiry was still at a preliminary stage. Furthermore, the private respondents erroneously claimed ownership of the disputed land, whereas revenue records establish it as public land. The orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 18.02.1978 and the District Collector, Pali, dated 31.07.1989, which attained finality, confirm that the private respondents are not khatedari tenants. Further, it was contended that the revisional court failed to consider these conclusive decisions, leading to a perverse and unsustainable finding. The counsel for the petitioner also contends that under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., an attachment order can be passed without prior notice, and the SDM’s decision to protect public property was lawful and justified. The revisional authority’s interference amounts to a miscarriage of justice and a misuse of the legal process, necessitating the quashing of the impugned order. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for the restoration of the SDM’s order and any other relief deemed just and proper by this Court.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and minutely going through the orders dated 26.05.2016, passed by the SDM, Sojat, and 27.10.2016, passed by the Revisional Court, this Court finds that the order of the Revisional Court is legally sound, whereas the SDM’s order lacks legal backing and reflects an incorrect interpretation of the law. It