The court affirmed that the order of attachment under S.145 Cr. P.C. was lawful, emphasizing the validity of existing possession agreements amidst ongoing partition proceedings.

1. The petitioners in this petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have challenged the order dated 15.7.2015 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Criminal Revision No.39/22015 (arising out of order dated 22.1.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Churhat, District Sidhi in Crime No.02/145-146 / Cr. P.C).

2. As per averments made in the petition, the petitioner No.2 is the owner of lands bearing Khasra No.94, 95, 112, 113, 114, 115 and 117 situated in village Madhugaon, Tahsil Churhat, District Sidhi. The petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. The aforesaid properties are the self acquired properties belonging to father of petitioner No.1. After the death of father, the petitioner No.1 received the same in succession and thereafter he transferred the same in favour of the petitioner No.2. Since the respondents No.1 to 4 were threatening with regard to possession over the aforesaid properties, the petitioners filed a complaint at the Police Station, Kamarji, District Sidhi. On the basis of said complaint, the Police Station, Kamarji submitted a complaint u/s 145 Cr. P.C. in the Court of SDM, Churhat which was registered as Case No.02/145 - 146 / Ja.Fau. / 2012-2013. The SDM, Churhat passed an order of attachment in respect of agricultural lands alongwith crops grown thereon, except the residential plots. The Tahsildar made spot inspection, prepared panchnama and submitted report dated 08.10.2013. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.103/2013 u/s 397 Cr. P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Sidhi on the ground that order of attachment has been passed without notice to the petitioners. The Sessions Judge, Sidhi vide order dated 21.10.2013 set aside the order of attachment passed by the SDM, Churhat and remanded the matter with direction to pass an order u/s 145(1) Cr. P.C. after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

3. After remand of the case, the parties filed their respective claims in respect of land in question. The respondents claimed the property to be ancestral one, but name of petitioners is recorded over the lands in question, therefore, petitioners are not inclined to give any share therefrom to the respondents. The respondent No.4 - Shatrudhan Singh replied the same by stating that he has been falsely impleaded in the case and he has no right over the properties belonging to the petitioner No.2 and he has never been in possession of the same. He has only right in the ancestral properties being the co - owners, and he is in possession of his share after partition.

4. The petitioners stated before the SDM, Churhat that out of disputed lands the petitioner No.2 is the sole owner of land admeasuring 3.94 acres and no one has any right over his property and hence, the order of attachment is illegal. It is further stated that if the respondents are aggrieved they may approach in civil suit for seeking relief of declaration of title. There is now no dispute between parties and the case regarding partition is pending before Tahsildar and proceedings under S.250 of M.P.Land Revenue is also pending. Accordingly, there is no need to pass any order under S.145/146 of Cr. P.C. and hence, case be closed.

5. The respondents No.1 to 3 after remand of the case submitted that all the disputed lands are ancestral properties, in which, they have one - third share. Out of the ancestral properties, mainly total seven (07) lands bearing Khasra No.94, 95, 112, 113, 114, 115 and 117 are the disputed ones. They have previous possession over the lands which are illegally mutated in the name of petitioner No.2 and the proceeding of partition is already pending and situation of disturbance in tranquility may arise.

6. The petitioners in res