2025:BHC-AUG:30049

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 593 OF 2023

1. Ramdas Ramchandra Patil,

Age 49 years, Occu. Agri.,

2. Sakharam Ramchandra Patil,

Age 51 years, Occu. Agri.,

Both R/o. Kurhad, Taluka Pachora,

District Jalgaon .. Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. The Tahsildar, Pachora

District Jalgaon

3. Rahul Pandurang Shimpi,

Age 30 years, Occu. Agri.,

R/o. Near Bus-stand, Pachora,

Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon .. Respondents

Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Petiti oners;

Mr. S. M. Ganachari, A.P.P. for Respondents No.1 and 2;

Mr. Harshal P. Randhir, Advocate for Respondent No.3

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 09-09-2025

JUDGMENT:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the

parties.

2. The challenge is raised to the order rendered by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “Cr.P.C.”). Respondent No.3 presented an application with an assertion that the present petitioners have

taken possession of the land belonging to the respondent in an unauthorized manner. As such, a request has been made to allow the application.

3. Admittedly, the parties to the proceedings have approached Civil Court by presenting a civil suit, which is awaiting its adjudication. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are the lawful owners of the subject land which having purchased it in the year 1995 from respondent No.3. Although the ownership and possession is transferred in favour of the petitioners through the registered sale deed and eventually petitioners’ names were effected in the revenue record. Respondent No.3 attempted to create obstruction, as such, the civil suit is filed before the competent court.

4. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 Tahsildar, invoking Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. Respondent No.2 Tahsildar issued on order of injunction against the petitioners till the conclusion of the civil suit. Raising an exception to the same, the present petitioners have approached this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The petitioners contend that it was not open for respondent No.2 Executive Magistrate to entertain an application when the question of possession is subject matter of the substantive civil suit. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Executive Magistrate has committed an overreach while entertaining the application and rendering the order under challenge. In support of the same, a reliance has been placed upon case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant versus State of U.P.

and others, (1985) 1 SCC 427

6. Per contra, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Randhir, learned counsel for respondent No.3 contending the order rendered by respondent No.2/Tahsildar, submitting that the order is in accordance with Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. in the process, report from the concerned police station, was called, satisfies the requirement of Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. as such, warrants no interference.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the litigating sides, it is a matter of record that the litigating parties are before the civil court, awaiting its adjudication. Essentially the issue of possession needs to be conclusively determined by the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction to that effect. Although it was brought to the notice by respondent No.2, it was not open for respondent No.2 to try and entertain an application under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to the issue of possession.

8. Respondent No.2 has thus committed overreach while issuing order of injunction/forbearance. The issue of possession is essentially subject matter of the civil court. As such, it was not open for the Executive Magistrate to get into the issue of the possession and eventually pass an order of injunction. When the civil litigation is pending in relation to the subject property wherein the question of possession is involved