Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Amrishchandra Agarwal, was a party in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) initiated on a police report regarding a large land dispute involving about 15 lakh sq. feet of land at Pereira layout, Vasai. The Executive Magistrate, Vasai, after inquiry, declared that the disputed property was in possession of party no.1 (respondent no.2 herein) and directed that party no.1 should not be obstructed from using the property. The applicant, being party no.2, filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, which was dismissed. Aggrieved, the applicant approached the Bombay High Court under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to set aside both the Magistrate's order and the Sessions Judge's order. The High Court noted that civil disputes regarding ownership and possession of the same land were pending before civil courts. The applicant's counsel argued that the Magistrate's order was patently illegal and perverse and that the respondent no.2 might use it to raise false contentions in the civil suits. The respondent no.2's counsel submitted that the order was not binding on civil courts and no interference was warranted. The High Court held that proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are summary in nature and do not determine title; the order is not binding on civil courts. Since civil suits were pending and no patent illegality was shown, the court declined to exercise its inherent powers and dismissed the application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 145 - Summary Proceedings - Nature and Scope - The proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are summary in nature and are intended to prevent breach of peace by determining actual possession, not title or ownership. The order passed therein is not binding on civil courts and cannot be used to create rights in civil disputes. (Paras 4-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Exercise of - When civil suits are pending between the parties regarding the same property, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with orders passed under Section 145 CrPC unless there is patent illegality or perversity. The apprehension that the order may be used in civil proceedings is not a ground for interference as the order is not binding on civil courts. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, declaring possession in favor of the respondent no.2, and the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the revision, should be set aside by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal application, holding that no interference was warranted under Section 482 CrPC as the order under Section 145 CrPC was not binding on civil courts and civil suits were pending.
Law Points
- Section 145 CrPC proceedings are summary in nature and do not determine title or ownership
- orders under Section 145 CrPC are not binding on civil courts
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be exercised when civil remedies are available and no patent illegality is shown
