Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santumal Assudomal Gogia, filed a criminal writ petition challenging an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ulhasnagar Division, under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The dispute pertained to a property bearing Room No. 1425, Barrack No. A713, situated at Prem Nagar, Ulhasnagar-5. Respondent No. 4, Nanikram Ramchandra Kriplani, had filed a complaint on 3.11.2000 alleging that the petitioner had grabbed his property and requested police action. The police submitted a report on 25.01.2001 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 CrPC. The Magistrate issued notice to both parties. The petitioner claimed that the property was originally owned by Tahelram Sevram Makhija, who died in 1976, leaving behind his widow Jassibai. Jassibai executed a will on 19.3.1986 and handed over possession to Chetandas Shevram Makhija. Chetandas sold the property to the petitioner on 7.11.1993, and the petitioner had been in possession since then, paying municipal taxes. The petitioner further contended that after the impugned order was passed, respondent No. 4 executed an agreement of sale dated 9.5.2002 in favour of the petitioner, accepting Rs. 2,00,000 as consideration (Rs. 1,30,000 in cash and Rs. 70,000 by cheques). In that agreement, respondent No. 4 admitted that the petitioner would be the sole and exclusive owner of the disputed property. The legal issue was whether the Magistrate's order under Section 145 CrPC could stand in light of the subsequent sale agreement. The petitioner argued that the proceedings had become infructuous. The respondent No. 4's counsel contended that the agreement was not acted upon and the petitioner had not paid the full amount. The court analyzed that Section 145 CrPC proceedings are summary and the Magistrate is not required to decide title. The court noted that the sale agreement dated 9.5.2002 clearly showed that respondent No. 4 had sold the property to the petitioner and accepted part payment. The court held that once the parties entered into a sale agreement, the dispute ceased to exist and the Magistrate ought to have dropped the proceedings. The court found that the Magistrate's order directing restoration of possession to respondent No. 4 was unsustainable. The court allowed the petition, quashed the Magistrate's order, and directed that the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC be treated as dropped.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 145 - Maintenance of Public Order - Scope of Proceedings - The proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are summary in nature and the Magistrate is not required to decide title or ownership; the only question is possession and likelihood of breach of peace. (Para 6) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 145 - Subsequent Events - Effect of Sale Agreement - Where after the passing of the preliminary order under Section 145 CrPC, the parties enter into a sale agreement and the petitioner purchases the property from the respondent, the dispute ceases to exist and the proceedings become infructuous. (Paras 7-8) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 145 - Dropping of Proceedings - Duty of Magistrate - Once the parties have settled the dispute by a subsequent agreement, the Magistrate must drop the proceedings and cannot continue to pass a final order directing restoration of possession. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order under Section 145 CrPC directing restoration of possession to respondent No. 4 was sustainable when the parties had subsequently entered into a sale agreement and the petitioner had purchased the property.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ulhasnagar Division, and directed that the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC be treated as dropped.
Law Points
- Section 145 CrPC proceedings are summary in nature and cannot be used to decide title
- once parties enter into a sale agreement and possession changes hands
- the dispute ceases to exist
- the Magistrate must drop proceedings if no likelihood of breach of peace remains.
