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 circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Date : 28-01-2025

The present petition, under Section 482 Cr.PC, has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 16.05.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- III, Nawada in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2015 / 16 of 2016, whereby learned Sessions Court had dismissed the revision petition finding no illegality in the order dated 27.10.2014 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajauli, District- Nawada in proceeding bearing No. 1M of 2014, whereby learned Executive Magistrate has attached the subject landed property.

2. The factual background of this case is that the opposite party No.2 herein, Sarojani Devi, filed one petition bearing Proceeding No. 50M of 2013 before learned Sub Divisional Magistrate for initiating proceeding under Section 144 Cr.PC and thereupon, the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.PC was initiated. However, after hearing both the parties, learned Executive Magistrate closed the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.PC and advised the parties to prefer Title Suit before Civil Court, if so advised.

3. Subsequently, the said Sarojani Devi filed one petition under Section 145 Cr.PC, before learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 07.12.2013 against the petitioners herein in regard to landed property measuring 1 Acre 37 decimal bearing Khata No. 135 and Plot No. 1544, 1546, 1546/2249, alleging that the petitioners herein were bent upon to forcibly dispossess her which might lead to breach of peace. In pursuance of this petition, learned Executive Magistrate called for report from Officer-in-charge and Circle Officer within a week. Subsequently, Circle Officer submitted his report stating that the purchasers of the lands are in possession, but there is dispute among the parties in regard to title to the property. However, he reported that on account of the dispute, there is apprehension of breach of peace.

4. On the basis of the said report of the circle officer, learned Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 28.01.2014, initiating proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC observing that on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, there is dispute between the parties in regard to possession which may lead to breach of peace. The parties were also directed to be informed about the proceeding.

5. Later on, the O.P. No.2 herein, Sarojani Devi, moved an application dated 22.10.2014 before learned Executive Magistrate for attachment of the subject landed property, stating that paddy crop is standing on the land and the petitioners herein were bent upon to harvest the same, which may lead to bloody occurrence. Subsequently, learned Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 27.10.2014, attaching the subject landed property under Section 146 (1) Cr.PC and appointing the Officer-in-charge of the local Police Station as the receiver, observing that from perusal of the application, it appeared that there was tension between the parties and the possibility of breach of peace could not be ruled out. He also observed in the impugned order that there was confusion regarding the possession over the land and there was possibility of breach of public peace.

6. The order of attachment dated 27.10.2014 was challenged by the petitioners herein in Criminal Revision bearing No. 44 of 2015/ 16 of 2016 before Sessions Court. However, Revision petition was dismissed and the order of attachment was upheld. Hence, the present petition.

7. It also transpires from the record that Sarojani Devi, O.P. No. 2 herein, has also filed one Civil Suit bearing Title Suit No. 0