Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Purushottam vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:50611) on 24 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:50611]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2930/2025
1. Purushottam S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Chaudhariyo Ki Gali, Pokharan, Jaisalmer.
2. Tarachand S/o Nakhatmal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Rajmathai, P.s. Phalsund, Jaisalmer.
3. Suraj Devi W/o Satyanarayan, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Bhadhriya, Pokharan, Jaisalmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Ruchi W/o Nirmal Kumar, D/o Ummedmal, R/o
House No. 23A, Paota C-Road, Shakti Nagar Gali No. 1,
Jodhpur, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Manish S/o
Ummedmal, R/o Sumer Bhawan, Dubgaro Ki Gali, Moti
Chowk, Jodhpur.
3. Bhanwar Lal S/o Parma Ram, R/o Didaniya, P.s. Pokharan,
Jaisalmer.
4. Bharat S/o Bhanwar Lal, R/o Didaniya, P.s. Pokharan,
Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Choudhary, PP
Mr. Deepesh Birla
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
ORDER
(i) Arguments concluded on: 09/09/2025
(ii) Judgment reserved on: 09/09/2025
(iii) Full judgment/Operative part: Full judgment
(iv) Judgment pronounced on : 24 / 11 /2025
1. The instant Misc. Petition under Sections 528 BNSS (482 Cr.PC.) has been filed against the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge, Pokharan, Jaisalmer (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50611] (2 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025] in Criminal Revision Petition No. 22/2024, whereby the revision petition of the respondent no.2 has been allowed and the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Subdivisional officer, Pokharan in case no. 15/2022 is set aside by directing that possession of the land in question be handed over to respondent no.2.
2. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that the respondent no.2 owned a plot of land bearing Khasra No. 936, situated on the Jodhpur-Jaisalmer road, measuring 102.5 x 170 feet, which had been gifted to the respondent no.2 by her father, through a registered gift deed. It was alleged that during the applicant's absence from Pokharan due to her mother's illness and subsequent demise, respondents no.3 and 4 unlawfully broke open the locks of the said plot, took possession, and established a nursery in the name of "Vivek Nursery." Pursuant to the complaint and subsequent investigation, an FIR under Sections 447, 427, and 34 of IPC was registered, and proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C were initiated, culminating in the attachment of the property by order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Pokharan.
3. Upon issuance of notice dated 06.01.2023 and attachment of the plot, the petitioners became aware of the proceedings and were impleaded as parties. The petitioners contended that the disputed plot had been sold to them by the respondent no.2 on (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50611] (3 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025] 30.12.2017 for a total consideration of ₹61,00,000, possession having been handed over on the same date. They asserted continuous possession and operation of a nursery on the plot prior to the attachment and challenged the proceedings as illegal and contrary to Section 145(6) Cr.P.C. The petitioners also instituted a civil suit for specific performance of the sale agreement before the learned ADJ, Pokharan which came to be registered as Civil Original Suit no. 03/2023. Along with this suit an application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been preferred, thereafter, learned trial Court vide its order dated 24.09.2024 has rejected the application and the said order is presently pending consideration before this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3188/2024.
4. After hearing the parties, the learned SDO vide order dated 25.10.2024, disposed of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C, holding that since possession had been taken from the petitioners and a civil suit between the parties was pending, possession be restored to the petitioners and respondents no.3 and 4, restraining respondent no.2 from interference without orders from a competent court. The property was accordingly released from the receiver and possession was restored.
5. Aggrieved thereby, respondent no.2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 22/2024 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pokharan, which was allowed vide order dated 01.04.2025, directing that possession of the property be handed over to respondent no.2. The present petition has been filed assailing the said order on the ground that it has been passed (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50611] (4 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025] without due consideration of the facts and material on record, resulting in a manifest abuse of the process of law.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Pokharan, is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It was contended that the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that the petitioners were in lawful possession of the property in question pursuant to a sale transaction dated 30.12.2017, wherein the applicant-respondent no.2 had agreed to sell the plot to the petitioners for a total consideration of ₹61,00,000. Substantial payment was made through cheques as well as in cash, and possession was duly handed over on the same date.
8. It was argued that since possession had been transferred to the petitioners long before the initiation of proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C, the question of treating them as trespassers did not arise. The learned revisional Court erred in directing restoration of possession to respondent no.2 without considering that a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell is already pending before the competent civil Court, wherein the issue of title and ownership is sub judice.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 145(6) Cr.P.C, no party in lawful possession can be dispossessed save in accordance with due process of law, and the revisional Court's order effectively deprived the petitioners of possession (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50611] (5 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025] without adjudication by a competent civil forum. It was further contended that the learned SDO had rightly observed that since the property had already been attached and possession was taken from the petitioners, and a civil dispute was pending, it was appropriate to restore the possession to the party last in settled possession. Hence, the impugned revisional order is contrary to law and liable to be set aside.
10. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Shakir Vs State of UP & Ors passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 5061/2022 and upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate bench of this Court at Jodhpur in the case of Mohd. Ramjan & Anr. Vs. State and Ors. passed in S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4499/2023 and at Jaipur in the case of Banshi vs. Ram Niwas passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1130/1993.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed the petition and submitted that the present proceedings are wholly misconceived and amounts to an abuse of the process of this Court, inasmuch as the petitioners have approached this Court after deliberately suppressing material facts and documents. It was submitted that respondent no.2 had initially filed a complaint under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C on 24.11.2022 alleging forcible dispossession from her own plot bearing Khasra No.936. Prior thereto, an FIR dated 12.11.2022 had already been lodged and, after investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 447 and 427/34 IPC was filed against the petitioners. Pursuant to the said complaint, the learned SDM directed the SHO, Pokharan, to (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50611] (6 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025] submit a factual/mauka report, and the Patwari's report, as well as a subsequent detailed factual report prepared in the presence of Advocate Iqbal Khan, categorically indicated that respondent no.2 was in possession of the disputed plot.
12. It was further submitted that on the basis of the said factual reports, the learned SDM rightly ordered attachment of the property and appointed the SHO, Pokharan, as receiver on 02.01.2023. Learned counsel contended that after the petitioners moved an impleadment application, without serving any notice or copy upon respondent no.2, the SDM, without affording an opportunity of hearing to respondent no.2, allowed their impleadment. Objections in this regard were duly recorded in the order-sheets of the SDM Court but remained unaddressed.
13. Learned counsel then submitted that after the petitioners entered the proceedings, the original factual/mauka report was clandestinely replaced with a fabricated/duplicate report, in which the possession of respondent no.2 was erased and substituted to favour the petitioners. This forged report, unlike the original, did not bear the signature of the advocate who was present at the time of preparation. Applications seeking an inquiry into the alleged tampering and seeking an explanation from the Investigating Officer were filed but no action was taken by the SDM. It was pointed out that in the revisional proceedings, these objections were re-agitated, and the learned revisional Court initiated an enquiry, directed attachment of the salary of the Investigating Officer, and sought his explanation. In his written reply, the Investigating Officer categorically admitted that the land (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50611] (7 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025] and possession stood in favour of respondent no.2. Thus, the revisional Court found that the SDM's order was founded upon a forged report and therefore correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction.
14. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 further submitted that the petitioners themselves had instituted a civil suit for specific performance in 2023 along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The application came to be rejected by the civil Court by a reasoned order recording a specific finding that possession of the disputed land was with respondent no.2. It was urged that such a finding by a competent civil Court was binding and had been expressly brought to the notice of the SDM, yet the SDM failed to consider the same while dismissing the complaint under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C.
15. It was also contended that the petitioners' claim of a sale transaction of 2017 is an afterthought and is contradicted by their own documents. In the legal notice dated 25.11.2022, the petitioners claimed that possession had been handed over to them in 2017 and that the land had been leased to one Bharat Kumar, whereas the rent agreement produced by them shows that the tenancy, if any, commenced only on 11.10.2022. Even the consideration claimed in different documents is inconsistent: the FIR lodged on 13.01.2023 mentions ₹60 lakhs, while the legal notice claims ₹61 lakhs. Learned counsel pointed out that respondent no.2 had earlier entered into a sale agreement in 2012 with one Idan Singh for ₹1,21,00,000, demonstrating that the value of the land was far higher than what the petitioners now (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50611] (8 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025] allege, which renders their version inherently improbable. It was submitted that the petitioners have also taken inconsistent stands sometimes alleging an oral agreement with respondent no.2 alone and at other times claiming a joint agreement with Idan Singh.
16. Learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Abid & Ors vs Ravi Naresh and Ors passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 5444 of 2022; Prakash Chand Sachdeva vs State reported in 1994 AIR 1436; Jhummamal Alias Devandas Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors reported in 1988 AIR 1973 and by the Allahabad High Court in Minta Devi vs Anant Ram @ Antu passed in Criminal Revision 432/1996.
17. On these premises, learned counsel submitted that the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pokharan, is a well-reasoned and lawful order based on a correct appreciation of the documents and material available on record, including the forged report and the findings of the civil Court, and therefore warrants no interference under Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C). It was thus prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
18. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
19. This Court finds that the core issue pertains to the question of possession over the disputed property. It is not in dispute that civil proceedings between the parties, regarding ownership and (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50611] (9 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025] specific performance, are already pending before the competent civil Court.
20. It is settled law that proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C are preventive in nature and confined to the maintenance of public peace and order. The Magistrate is not expected to adjudicate upon ownership or title. In all the judgments cited supra, wherein a civil dispute regarding the same property was pending, the Courts have consistently observed that when civil litigation is already sub-judice, the criminal Court should not pass orders that may prejudice the rights of the parties in such litigation, and that status quo should ordinarily be maintained.
21. It is an admitted fact that a suit for specific performance has been instituted on 18.03.2023 before the Court of the learned ADJ, Pokharan, along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The said application came to be rejected on 24.09.2024 with the observation that the petitioners had failed to prove that possession was in their favour. However, the learned SDO, on 25.10.2024, passed an order directing that possession be given to the present petitioners. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Abid (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C must come to an end once the civil Court is seized of the matter. The Court held as follows:
"1. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at a considerable length and carefully perused the material placed on record.
2. The controversy in this case pertains to Zamindari Plot No.3082, consisting of some shops (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50611] (10 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025] and a residential house constructed on it, situated in Mohalla Angooribagh, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh.
3. While the petitioners claim that they have purchased the subject property by way of four consecutive registered Sale Deeds dated 05.10.2020, the case of the respondents is that the suit property was purchased by their predecessors-in-interest way back on 16.11.1949 by way of a valid Sale Deed.
4. It is, however, an admitted fact that the petitioners have already filed a suit for injunction in which ex-parte ad-interim injunction has been granted by the Civil Court, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh on 05.12.2020. Once the Civil Court is seized of the matter, it goes without saying that the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. cannot proceed and must come to an end. The interse rights of the parties regarding title or possession are eventually to be determined by the Civil Court.
5. In this view of the matter, and without expressing any views on merits on the rival claims of the parties, we dispose of this Special Leave Petition with a direction that the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 03.06.2022 shall continue to operate as an interim measure till the Civil Court, Faizabad passes an appropriate order after hearing both the parties.
6. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is, however, directed that both the parties shall not create any third party rights or encumberances over the property in dispute.
7. With these observations and directions, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
8. As a sequel thereto, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of."
22. Furthermore, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Munshi Ram vs. State & Ors., S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 4923/2024, has held that the Magistrate's role under Section 145 Cr.P.C is confined to ensuring public peace and is not akin to that of a civil Court. The Court held:
"8. Once civil litigations regarding the property are already pending, the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C should not delved into making findings on the civil/possession/title rights of the parties concerning the property. The purpose of (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50611] (11 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025] Section 145 is to maintain public peace and order when there's a dispute over possession of property, and not to determine the rightful owner. Two cases civil/revenue suits had already been filed regarding the property, making it thus unnecessary for the SDM to interfere in the matter.
9. Once the civil proceedings are concededly in progress, the SDM's role is limited, and issuing orders like appointment of receiver amounts to overstepping the boundaries. The role of the Magistrate is to handle imminent breaches of peace, not to settle property disputes, which is within the purview of civil courts. Instead, if there is a need to prevent breach of peace, the Magistrate can take measures under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C."
23. In the present case, it is an admitted position that a civil suit for specific performance between the parties is already pending before the competent civil Court, wherein the issues relating to ownership, title, lawful possession and enforceability of the agreement in question shall be adjudicated. In such circumstances, any direction under Sections 145-146 Cr.P.C compelling delivery of possession to either side would virtually amount to a pre-determination of disputed civil rights, which the criminal Court is not competent to undertake. The learned revisional Court, while setting aside the SDO's order, proceeded on the premise that restoration of possession to respondent no.2 was necessary to prevent further breach of peace and that the SDO had failed to exercise powers properly. The more appropriate course, especially when civil proceedings are already pending, would be to preserve the existing state of affairs without deciding the possession one way or the other. If at all any preventive measure was warranted to maintain public tranquillity, the SDO could have resorted to proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C, as (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50611] (12 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025] preventive jurisdiction must operate with minimal interference in civil rights until the civil Court finally settles the dispute.
24. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion and the principles laid down in the judgments cited above, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and is already sub judice before the competent civil Court. Accordingly, while the findings of the learned revisional Court regarding the preventive nature of the proceedings are upheld, it is directed that the status quo regarding possession over the property in question as per order of the revisional Court shall be maintained by both parties until final adjudication of the civil suit.
25. The parties are further directed not to disturb the existing possession or create any third-party interest in the property till the final disposal of the civil suit.
26. It is made clear that no observations made in this order shall have any bearing on the merits of the civil proceedings, and all submissions of the parties shall remain open to be urged before the civil Court, which shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.
27. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
28. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 69-m-singh/-
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:10:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)