Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Suryakant Gurulingappa Kalshetti and Lingraj Gurulingappa Kalshetti, challenged an order dated 13/03/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2023. The revisional court had dismissed their revision against an order dated 02/03/2023 passed by the Tahsildar under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Tahsildar had closed the Section 145 proceedings in view of a pending civil suit between the parties but, despite the closure, restrained the petitioners from interfering with the possession of respondent No. 3, Mahesh Kalshetti. The petitioners argued that the Tahsildar committed an error apparent on the face of the record by usurping the jurisdiction of the civil court and granting an injunction after closing the proceedings. The revisional court, although it recorded a finding that the Tahsildar could not have injuncted the petitioners, still dismissed the revision. The High Court held that once the Tahsildar closed the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, he had no jurisdiction to pass any order of injunction, as such power is not conferred under Section 145 CrPC. The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 145 CrPC - Jurisdiction of Executive Magistrate - Closure of Proceedings - After closing proceedings under Section 145 CrPC due to pendency of a civil suit, the Tahsildar cannot pass an order of injunction restraining parties from interfering with possession, as such power is not conferred under Section 145 CrPC and would usurp the jurisdiction of the civil court. (Paras 1-4)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 145 CrPC - Revisional Court - Error in Upholding Illegal Order - The revisional court, despite recording that the Tahsildar could not have injuncted the petitioners, erred in dismissing the revision, thereby perpetuating an illegal order. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tahsildar, after closing proceedings under Section 145 CrPC in view of a pending civil suit, has the jurisdiction to pass an order restraining the petitioners from interfering with the possession of the respondent.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the order dated 13/03/2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, and the order dated 02/03/2023 passed by the Tahsildar, Akkalkot, under Section 145 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 145 CrPC proceedings
- closure upon civil suit
- Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to grant injunction after closure
- revisional court's error in upholding illegal order
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 91
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2047 of 2025
Mr. Rahul P. Kasbekar for the Petitioners, Dr. A.A. Takalkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State, Mr. Balasaheb Ligade (Through V.C.) for the Respondent No.3
Suryakant Gurulingappa Kalshetti and Lingraj Gurulingappa Kalshetti
The State of Maharashtra, Police Inspector Akkalkot North Police Station, and Mahesh Vijaykumar Kalshetti
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, dismissing a revision against the Tahsildar's order under Section 145 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the Tahsildar's order dated 02/03/2023 and the revisional court's order dated 13/03/2025.
Filing Reason
The Tahsildar, after closing Section 145 CrPC proceedings due to a pending civil suit, passed an order restraining the petitioners from interfering with the possession of respondent No. 3, which the petitioners contended was without jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Tahsildar closed the Section 145 CrPC proceedings on 02/03/2023 but restrained the petitioners from interfering with possession. The revisional court dismissed the revision on 13/03/2025.
Issues
Whether the Tahsildar, after closing proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, has jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction.
Whether the revisional court erred in dismissing the revision despite recording that the Tahsildar could not have injuncted the petitioners.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Tahsildar committed an error apparent on the face of the record by closing the Section 145 CrPC proceedings but still injuncting the petitioners, thereby usurping the jurisdiction of the civil court.
The respondents did not make any specific submissions as the court allowed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
Once the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are closed in view of a pending civil suit, the Executive Magistrate (Tahsildar) has no jurisdiction to pass any order of injunction, as such power is not conferred under Section 145 CrPC. Any such order would usurp the jurisdiction of the civil court.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Tahsildar had committed an error apparent on the face of record whereby the Section 145 of CrPC proceedings are closed in view of the filing of the civil suit, however still the learned Tahsildar has usurped the jurisdiction of the civil Court and has injuncted the Petitioners herein from interfering the possession of Respondent No.3 - Mahesh Kalshetti.
Once the learned Tahsildar had closed the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC, he could not have passed any order of injunction, as such power is not conferred under Section 145 of CrPC.
Procedural History
The Tahsildar, Akkalkot, passed an order on 02/03/2023 under Section 145 CrPC closing the proceedings due to a pending civil suit but restraining the petitioners from interfering with possession. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2023 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, which was dismissed on 13/03/2025. The petitioners then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition No. 2047 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur.
Acts & Sections
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC): Section 145
