Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
B. BHATTACHARJEE
Minondro Arengh S/o Late M.M. Sangma – Appellant
Versus
Talika T. Sangma D/o W.M. Marak – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B. BHATTACHARJEE, J.
1. By this Criminal Revision, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 01/2021 u/s 145 Cr.PC by which the disputed land was ordered to be attached u/s 146 (1) Cr.PC.
2. Heard Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. P.R. Paske, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
3. The facts as can be revealed from the materials on record is that the respondent herein filed an FIR dated 05.02.2021 before the Officer In- charge, Ampati Police Station alleging that the petitioner was attempting to forcibly occupy her land situated at Ichakuri, Ampati, South West Garo Hills District. Pursuant to the lodging of the FIR, the police conducted an investigation in the matter and thereafter, forwarded a report to the learned Executive Magistrate, South West Garo Hills District for initiation of proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC involving both the petitioner and the respondent herein. The learned Executive Magistrate, consequent upon receiving the police report drew up a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC in Misc. Case No. 01/2021. It appears that pursuant to the initiation of the proc
An order of attachment under Section 146(1) Cr.PC requires proof of likelihood of breach of peace and determination of possession, which was not established in this case.
Point of Law : Section 145 of Code concerned with restoration of possession and prevention of breach of peace and tranquillity.
The court emphasized that attachment orders under emergency provisions must be backed by compelling evidence of imminent danger to public peace, otherwise it constitutes a misuse of legal process.
Executive Magistrate must ascertain actual possession and genuine threat to peace before initiating proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C.
The discretionary nature of orders under Section 146(1) CrPC and their classification as interlocutory orders not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.
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 emphasized that vague assertions of breach of peace are insufficient for an attachment order under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C.
Executive Magistrates cannot initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC if a civil suit related to the same property is ongoing, as it encroaches on civil jurisdiction without established emergency....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings under Section 145 and Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should only be initiated when there is a lik....
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
