[2026:RJ-JP:8086]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 857/2013

1. Dhapu W/o Shri Maddudas, 2. Shanti D/o Shri Maddudas R/o Tindu at present residing at Khedli Kalan, Tehsil and District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Hansraj R/o Tindu, Tehsil and District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

2. Madho S/o Shri Gopal R/o Tindu, Tehsil and District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

3. Hanuman, 4. Chotu, 5. Galya 6. Pappu Respondents no.3 to 6 S/os of Madho R/o Tindu, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur.

7. Tehsildar Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur, Raj.

8. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Harshita Sharma for Dr. Mahesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain For State : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

20/02/2026

1. Present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed challenging order dated 21.02.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, whereby revision petition preferred by Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 was allowed and order dated 01.02.2013, passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chouth Ka Barwada, Sawai Madhopur, in proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., was set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a revenue suit in respect of ancestral land of petitioners has been pending since 1998. It was contended that on 09.07.2012, a law and order situation arose when respondents attempted to dispossess petitioners from the land in question. In order to prevent breach of peace, an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed. Learned SDM, vide order dated 01.02.2013, allowed said application and appointed Tehsildar, Chouth Ka Barwada, as Receiver of the land in question.

3. Said order was challenged by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 by filing a revision petition, which was allowed by learned Sessions Judge, thereby directing receiver to hand over possession of land to the person from whom possession had been taken.

4. Challenging said revisional order, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that fundamental aspects of the case as well as the findings of SDM were not properly considered by learned Revisional Court. It was contended that facts and circumstances of present case clearly warranted the exercise of powers under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. to prevent breach of peace, and learned Revisional Court wrongly interfered with the order of SDM. It was further argued that the findings recorded by Revisional Court are contrary to settled position of law and suffer from illegality and arbitrariness, thus warranting interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that learned Revisional Court rightly considered the facts in light of mandatory requirements for invoking Section 145 Cr.P.C. It was argued that there was no material on record to establish the existence of a real apprehension of breach of peace; therefore, order passed by SDM was erroneous and was rightly set aside.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Since the issue pertains to exercise of powers under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., it is necessary to examine whether the statutory requirements for exercising power under said sections were being complied with. Relevant provisions under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. are quoted below:-

"145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace —

(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, an