IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11208 of 2022 SANJEEV @ SANJU Versus SMT. LALITA BAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent No. 1 even though served.

Mr. Anurag Sharma - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER Present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2021.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.06.2021, Respondent No. 1 filed an application before Respondent No. 2 (Police) alleging a breach of peace in Village Indarwas. The dispute pertained to the possession of land bearing Survey No. 874 (Area 3.826 Hectares), which is also the subject of a pending civil suit between Respondent No. 1 and petitioner. Based on this, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. before the SDM, Gyaraspur (District Vidisha), impleading the Respondent No. 1 as 'Party No. 1' and the present Petitioner as 'Party No. 2'. 2.

3. On 25.06.2021, the SDM registered the matter as Case No.

4/145/2021 and passed an interim order on the same day. Holding that a possibility of a breach of peace existed, the SDM ordered the attachment of the disputed land and directed the In-charge of Police Station Gyaraspur to appoint an independent receiver and submit a report within seven days. Aggrieved by the attachment, the Petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Vidisha on the ground that the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, had already granted a stay regarding the disputed land. The original owner, Khoba Ahirwar, had executed a Registered Will in favor of the Petitioner on 17.07.2019. Following the testator's death, the Petitioner is the lawful owner in settled possession of the property. Respondent No. 1 possesses no right, title, or interest in the said land. Despite these submissions and the material available on record, the learned Sessions Court rejected the revision. Aggrieved by the order of the SDM dated 25.06.2021 and the order of the Sessions Court, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside the said orders as being contrary to the settled principles of law.

4. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 1 had filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction (RCSA No. 900052/2015) regarding the land in question (Survey No. 874, Area 3.826 Hectares). This suit was dismissed by the Sixth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vidisha on 29.11.2021 due to the non-appearance of the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1. Counsel further draws the Court’s attention to the Plaint (Annexure P/4) and the Written Statement of Khooba Ahirwar (Annexure P/5), wherein the said Khooba Ahirwar expressly denied his paternity of Respondent No. 1. The dismissal of the suit, coupled with this denial, clarifies that Respondent No. 1 is not the daughter of Khooba Ahirwar and possesses no right, title, or interest in the disputed land. In such circumstances, Both Courts below have ignored this vital aspect, rendering the impugned orders legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

5. Heard.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the record, this Court finds that the initiation and continuation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. were wholly unwarranted in the present case. The material on record clearly demonstrates that the dispute between the parties is predominantly civil in nature and was already subject matter of a civil suit, which stood dismissed. The petitioner has placed sufficient material to show settled possession over the disputed land, whereas Respondent No. 1 failed to establish any semblance of right, title, or possession. In such circumstances, the learned SDM erred in ordering attachment of the property merely on the apprehensio