The court reaffirmed that actual possession can be determined under Cr.P.C., while title disputes must be resolved in civil courts.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.-Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Chandra Badan, learned AGA for the State, Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to set aside the order dated 22.5.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2024 (Laxmi Devi and another v. Divya Deval and another) under Section 397 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit and impugned order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the learned City Magistrate, Pilibhit in Case No. 593 of 2022 (Computerised Case No. D202212560000593) (State v. Divya Deval and another) under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C.

3. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned orders dated 26.12.2023 and 22.5.2024 passed by the Court concerned are illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and bad in the eyes of law. It has also been contended that as per the sale-deed, the petitioners are the legal owners of the disputed house.

4. The said property was jointly purchased on 23.8.2013 in favour of father of both the petitioners late Ashok Kumar Sharma and petitioner No. 2-Sunal Sharma (brother of petitioner No. 1). The respondent No. 2-Smt. Divya Deval had no legal right over the residential house and the plot. Despite this fact, the City Magistrate, Pilibhit illegally passed the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 against the petitioners and declared the respondent No. 2 of having actual physical possession over the disputed property and restrained the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Laxmi Devi not to interfere in the disputed property and directed the Inspector Incharge, Kotwali to open the lock of the house and hand over the possession to the respondent No. 2-Smt. Divya Deval.

5. Having aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2023, the petitioner No. 1 filed Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2024 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Pilibhit which was also rejected on 22.5.2024. It has been contended that the impugned orders dated 26.12.2023 and 22.5.2024 have been passed without application of judicial mind, in a mechanical and routine manner, illegally and erroneously and are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-Smt. Divya Deval contended that on the basis of the police report dated 2.7.2018 submitted by Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit, the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. were initiated.

7. It has been contended that the respondent No. 2-Smt. Divya Deval was in actual physical possession over the disputed property for the past six years. The dispute regarding possession arose on 1.7.2018 wherein scuffle took place between the respondent No. 2 Smt. Divya Deval and Gurmit Kaur and a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) was registered by Smt. Divya Deval at Police Station Kotwali, Pilibhit i.e. NCR No. 138 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504 IPC. When Smt. Divya Deval proceeded to the Police Station to lodge the NCR, the petitioner No. 1-Smt. Laxmi Devi forcefully entered into the disputed house and broke the lock with the help of her associates and took over the possession. For this incident, the respondent No. 2-Smt. Divya Deval lodged an FIR against the petitioner No. 1-Smt. Laxmi Devi i.e. Case Crime No. 283 of 2018 under Sections 488, 504, 506 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit.

8. As both the parties claimed possession over the disputed property, therefore, there were every chance of breach of peace and looking to the emergent condition, the City Magistrate, Pilibhit, on the basis of police report, attached the disputed property and handed over the possession to the Naib Tehsildar on 2.7.2018.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 2.7.2018, the respondent No. 2-Smt. Divya Deval preferred a Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2018 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly, whereby, vide o