ORDER

1. This application under section 528 of BNSS has been filed against the order dated 18/11/2024 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge Basoda, District Vidisha in Criminal Revision No.11/2023 by which the order dated 3.3.2023 passed by SDM, Basoda in Case No.7/criminal/145/2022, which was passed under section 146 of Cr.P.C. by attaching the disputed property has been affirmed.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that an Istgasa was filed by police alleging the possibility of breach of peace. SDM while passing order under section 146 of Cr.P.C. did not record that there is any urgency or possibility of breach of peace and has passed an order of attachment and, therefore, the aforesaid order is a by product by non-application of effect. It is further submitted that the civil suit is pending between the parties and, therefore, in the light of judgment passed by the High Court of Nanital in the case of Rameshwar Havelia v. Asian Agro Farms India Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2009 CriLJ 2753 has held that proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. are not maintainable and parties can approach the civil Court. Respondents have already approached the civil Court and there is nothing on record that any order of status quo has been passed.

3. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. When arguments were initiated by counsel for applicant, then a simple question was put to counsel for applicant with regard to status and the nature of relationship between applicant as well as respondents. It was submitted by Shri Shrama that applicant is the vendor who has allegedly sold the property in dispute to respondents by multiple different sale-deeds. Although, it was expected from the applicant himself that he should have placed those sale-deeds on record, but deliberately it was not filed. However, sale-deeds have been placed on record by respondents. From the sale-deeds, it is clear that there is a clear recital that possession of land has been delivered to respondents, who are the purchasers. However, counsel for applicant refused to comment upon the sale-deeds by submitting that he is not authorized to argue on the question of maintainability of proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. and he has been authorized only to argue on the order passed under section 146 of Cr.P.C. and refused to answer the query raised by this Court.

6. Be that whatever it may be.

7. Two contentions raised by counsel for applicant for challenging the order under section 146 of Cr.P.C. are as under:-

(1) There is no emergency;

(2) There is no application of mind:

8. Although, according to applicant, he is not authorized to argue with regard to maintainability of proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. still he tried to submit that on account of pendency of civil suit, the proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. should not have been initiated.

9. This Court is not concerned about the authority given by litigant to his counsel, but this Court is concerned about the dispute in hand and, therefore, the attempt made by Shri Sharma to attack the proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of pendency of civil suit shall also be considered.

10. Today, I.A.No.6820/2025 has been filed by respondents by way of return alongwith multiple documents.

11. All these documents are certified copies, therefore, it is clear that they are records of judicial proceedings and in fact it was expected from the applicant that he should have filed the same, but unfortunately that was not done.

12. Be that whatever it may.

13. Istgasa No.30/2022, which was filed by police, reads as under:-

^^Jheku~ ,l-Mh-,e- eg¨n; xatckl©nk fuosnu gS fd leniqj xat ckl©nk Jheku d¢ {ks=kUrxZr vkrk gS vkt fnukad xzke leniqj esa lqfer çdk'k tSu d¢ [ksr esa vukosnd iq"isUæ firk fuÒZ; flag nkaxh mez 26 o"kZ ,oa fuÒZ; flag firk xaxkjke nkaxh mez 51 o"kZ fuoklhx.k leniqj mldh l¨;kchu dh