Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is settled principle of law that title of a property may only be decided by the competent Civil Courts and under the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., the Executive Magistrate may take action in respect of a dispute only about actual possession over the property, where there is apprehension breach of peace due to above dispute. Prior to 2011 in a number of cases, it was held that an order of attachment under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order against which revision is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 397 Cr.P.C. However, in due course of time, the matter of maintainability of revision was referred to full Bench and the full Bench of this Court in the case of Munna Singh @ Shivji Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (9) ADJ 1998 held that "An order of attachment under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. is an order of movement which has effect on the right of party in possession-cannot therefore, be said to be mere interlocutory order so as to bar revisional jurisdiction of High Court.

From the perusal of provisions of Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. it is crystal clear that the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. can only be in respect of the possession over the immovable property and the criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide the title, which jurisdiction vests only in Civil Courts. The perusal of impugned orders under Sections 145(1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C. shows that the learned Magistrate in the impugned orders has mentioned that Inspector Kotwali Mathura, in his report dated 13.03.2012 has mentioned that the property in question is a double storied house in an area of 480 sq. yards bearing Water Rate No. 202/103, which has been sold by Smt. Jamuna Devi to Pradeep Kumar, Brijwasi Agarwal and Shyam Sunder on 03.06.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 37 lakhs. It has also been mentioned that in the portion of Ist party Shyam Sunder, (opposite party no. 2) Indramohan Gautam the IInd party (revisionist) is residing and claims to be a tenant and also claims to be depositing rent in Court, while the other two portions which are in occupation of Pradeep Kumar and Brijwasi Agarwal and that Ist party Shyam Sunder asked IInd party Indramohan Gautam to vacate the house for which he made a demand of Rs. 5,50,000/- for vacating the house and the same was paid by Ist party Shyam Sunder, IInd party Indramohan Gautam despite which he did not vacate the house, so there is tension and apprehension of breach of peace. He has mentioned in the impugned order that "प्रभारी निरीक्षक कोतवाली मथुरा की आख्या से यह भी स्पष्ट होता है कि शान्ति व्यवस्था भंग होने से इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता l अतः दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता कि धारा- 145(1) के अन्तर्गत कि गयी कार्यवाही पूर्ण होने तक मौके पर शान्ति व्यवस्था बनाये रखने के दृष्टिकोण से मै विनोद सिंह चौधरी नगर मजिस्ट्रेट मथुरा अन्तर्गत धारा 146(1) दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता में दिए गये अधिकारों का प्रयोग करते हुए विवादित मकान को कुर्क करता हूँ l" in his order under Section 145(1) the Magistrate has mentioned that "प्रभारी निरीक्षक कोतवाली मथुरा की आख्या दिनांक 13.02.2012 से संतुष्ट होकर आदेश देता हूँ कि उभय पक्ष विवादित मकान के मालिकाना हक के संबंध में नियत दिनांक 23.03.2012 को प्रातः 10:00 बजे अधोहस्ताक्षरी के न्यायलय में उपस्थित होकर अपना अपना लिखित व मौखिक साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करें यदि ऐसा न करने में कोई भी पक्ष असमर्थ होता है तो यह माना जायेगा कि उन्हें कुछ नहीं कहना है l"

The perusal of impugned order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. shows that the City Magistrate, Mathura at the time of passing of the impugned order, has not taken care of going through the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. The Section 145 Cr.P.C., clearly provides that the Magistrate can only decide the dispute between the parties about their respective claims as respect to actual possession of the subject of dispute but by the impugned order dated 09.03.2012 under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has issued notice for filing written statements in respect of the right and title over the disputed house, instead of actual possession.

As laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) the nature of possession may not be taken into account at the time of issuance of order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.

In view of the discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the impugned order dated 09.03.2012 passed by City Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 24 of 2011 under Sections 145(1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C. are wrong and illegal and are liable to be set aside and the revision is liable to be allowed.

The revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.03.2012 passed by City Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 24 of 2011 under Sections 145(1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C. are set aside.