IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33243 of 2024 IKRAAR AND OTHERS Versus M.P. STATE AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manish Kumar Vijaywargiya - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Romil Verma - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Manuraj Singh - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

ORDER

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed for setting aside the order dated 26.04.2024, passed in CRR No.14/2022 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh(Biaora), District Rajgarh whereby, the order dated 27.01.2022, passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh in Case No.001/145/2020 was affirmed.

2. The exposition of the facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, is as under :

(A) Dr. Irfan Khan S/o Rahman Khan and Ikraar S/o Hayat Khan submitted a written complaint to S.H.O. of Police Station – Rajgarh on 21.02.2020 alleging dispute with regard to the agricultural land. The S.H.O. of P.S. Rajgarh submitted Complaint No.02/20 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh.

(B) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh, after enquiry, passed the order dated 27.01.2022 in Case No.001/145/2020/Cr.P.C. concluding that the land comprised in Survey Nos.60 and 61 of Rajgarh was in possession of Party No.1 - Dr. Irfan Khan and restrained Party No.2 – Ikraar Khan and Mohammad Amjad to interfere in possession of party Party No.1 – Dr. Irfan Khan. It was further directed that no party shall make any construction over the land till disposal of the civil suit between the parties.

3. The Party No.2 i.e. Ikraar Khan and Mohammad Amjad filed revision before the Court of Sessions, Rajgarh assailing the order dated 27.01.2022 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh. The IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in CRR. No.14 of 2022, passed the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 affirming the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and rejected the revision petition.

4. The present petition is filed assailing the order dated 26.04.2024 of the Revisional Court on following grounds :

(1) The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh was arbitrary and contrary to law. The order was passed by the Executive Magistrate without ascertaining the possession over disputed land for the period of two months before the police report.

2. The Executive Magistrate failed to appreciate the material on record.

3. The Civil Suit No. RCS-A 05/2020 for declaration of title and possession filed on 19.11.2019 was pending before the Civil Court, therefore, the Executive Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order of injunction against the revision petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge committed error in rejecting the revision and upholding the order of Executive Magistrate.

On these grounds, it is requested that the impugned orders be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, submits that when civil litigation for declaration of title and possession was pending, there was no justification for initiating parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 427 and Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey & Another[2000 (4) SCC 440] to buttress his contentions.

6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the petition and contended that the Executive Magistrate, on consideration of material on reocrd, correctly concluded that the Party No.1 i.e. Dr. Irfan Khan(respondent No.2 herein) was in possession of the land. Therefore, his possession was duly protected by passing a restraining order. The Revisional Court committed no error in affirming the order of Executive Magistrate. The petition is meritless.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as lear