HC: S. 145 of the Cr.P.C. deals only with the factum of possession of a party on a particular date. It confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property, Read Judgment

The single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is meant for the preservation of peace and tranquility. An order passed under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. deals only with the factum of possession of a party on a particular date. It confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property. The order is subject to the decision of the civil court

Brief facts

The factual matrix of the case is that the land was recorded in the name of Shiekh Ramjan Mian and both the sons of Shiekh Ramjan inherited the property and amicably portioned the land. Nabir Mian (one of the sons of Shiekh Ramjan) sold his portion of land to Jaigun Nisha (mother of the Petitioner) on the payment of cash consideration of Rs. 500/- by means of a registered deed of sale. Thereafter, Jaigun Nisha came in the exclusive possession of the property and applied for mutation. After the death of Jaigun Nisha, her sons (petitioners) inherited the aforesaid property and came into exclusive possession of the tank. Furthermore, in the year 1977, the opposite party came with a deadly weapon and tried to forcibly take possession of the tank constructed over the land in question. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the case under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. The learned sub-divisional magistrate attached the land in question under Section 146(i) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision application was filed before the Additional District & Sessions Judge and the same was dismissed. The executive magistrate passed a restrictive order against first-party member not to create hindrance to the peaceful possession of the second party over the tank constructed on the said land. Further, the land in question has also been freed from the responsibility of the receiver who was appointed. Hence, the present criminal revision is filed.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The Petitioner submitted that the Petitioners had inherited the land in question from the Jaigun Nisha and since then they have been in continuous possession of the same whereas on the other hand, the opposite parties are claiming possession over the tank in question on the basis of forged sale deed. It was furthermore submitted that the learned court below had committed a grave error in deciding the title of the second party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.

Contentions of the Respondent

The Respondent submitted that the magistrate has to record satisfaction in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., and it cannot go into deciding the title of the parties or any findings arrived at on the basis of a claim of title, which is within the ambit and scope of the civil court of competent jurisdiction only.

Observations of the court

The Hon’ble court observed that the purpose of a Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding is to maintain peace and tranquility. An order made pursuant to Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. solely addresses a party’s factual possession as of a specific date. It gives no right to keep the contested property in possession. The order is contingent upon a civil court’s finding.

The court furthermore observed that the party cannot be permitted to litigate before the Criminal Court where proper remedy lies before the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

Based on these considerations, the court refused to interfere with the impugned order.

The decision of the court

With the above direction, the court dismissed the revision.

Case Title: Makshood Alam @ Makshood V. Nehal

Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 790 of 2009

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sarju Prasad, Advocate Mr. Afaque Ahmad, Advocate.

Advocate for the Opposite Party: Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Advocate.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com