Once Section 145 CrPC proceedings declared infructuous due to subsisting civil injunction, Magistrate lacks jurisdiction for further possession orders. Such orders without notice violate natural justice; High Court quashes under Section 528 BNSS supervisory powers. (32 words)

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicants seeking quashing and setting aside of the judgment and final order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2025, whereby the revision filed by the Applicants against the order of the City Magistrate, Dehradun dated 23.11.2024 came to be dismissed.

2. The dispute pertains to an immovable property situated at Race Course, Dehradun, which has remained in the ownership and possession of the Applicants’ family since 1962. Over time, four residential structures were constructed on the said property, which were used both as family residences and for lawful tenancy purposes.

3. On 11.10.2012, following a violent incident involving Respondent No. 4 and his associates, the learned City Magistrate, Dehradun initiated proceedings under Sections 145/146(1) CrPC and sealed one house forming part of the larger property, registering the matter as Case No. 19 of 2012. The remaining structures continued in peaceful possession of the Applicants and their tenants.

4. The Applicants’ predecessor-in-interest, Late Shri Subhash Chandra Mittal, thereafter instituted Original Suit No. 217 of 2013 before the Civil Court at Dehradun seeking permanent injunction in respect of the subject property. During the pendency of the civil proceedings, this Court, in C482 No. 694 of 2013, repeatedly directed maintenance of status quo, culminating in an interim injunction order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, which continues to operate till date.

5. In view of the subsisting civil injunction and status quo orders, this Court ultimately dismissed the proceedings arising out of Section 145 CrPC as infructuous on 24.09.2024, a fact admittedly within the knowledge of all concerned authorities including the City Magistrate and the Station House Officer, Nehru Colony, Dehradun.

6. Despite such dismissal and in alleged disregard of the subsisting civil court injunction, Respondent No. 4 moved an application on 23.11.2024 before the City Magistrate for release of the sealed property. On the very same day, without issuing notice to or hearing the Applicants, the City Magistrate ordered release of the sealed house in favour of Respondent No. 4, pursuant to which physical possession was taken on 24.11.2024, accompanied by alleged vandalism and breaking of seals in the presence of police personnel.

7. Aggrieved, the Applicants preferred Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2025 before the Sessions Court at Dehradun. The said revision was ultimately dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge on 09.07.2025, affirming the order of the City Magistrate, which has led to the filing of the present application invoking the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that the impugned order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the City Magistrate, Dehradun is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the proceedings under Sections 145/146(1) CrPC, registered as Case No. 19 of 2012, had already been rendered infructuous by this Court in C482 No. 694 of 2013 by order dated 24.09.2024. It was urged that once this Court itself declared the said proceedings infructuous on account of the subsisting civil court injunction,