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 revision was filed against an order dated 02/03/2023 passed by the Tahsildar under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The Tahsildar had closed the Section 145 proceedings because a civil suit was pending between the parties, but simultaneously restrained the petitioners from interfering with the possession of respondent No. 3, Mahesh Vijaykumar 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, while recording that the Tahsildar could not have granted such an injunction, nevertheless 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 that power lies with the civil court. The impugned order of the Revisional Court was set aside, and the Tahsildar's order was quashed to the extent it restrained the petitioners. The High Court clarified that the civil court would decide the rights of the parties in the pending suit.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 145 CrPC - Executive Magistrate's Power - Closure of Proceedings - After closing proceedings under Section 145 CrPC due to pendency of a civil suit, the Executive Magistrate cannot pass an order of injunction restraining parties from interfering with possession, as such an order usurps the jurisdiction of the civil court. (Paras 1-4)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Maintainability - The Revisional Court erred in dismissing the revision despite recording that the Tahsildar could not have granted an injunction after dropping proceedings. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tahsildar, after closing proceedings under Section 145 CrPC in view of a pending civil suit, could still pass an order restraining the petitioners from interfering with the possession of the respondent.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the Revisional Court, and quashed the Tahsildar's order to the extent it restrained the petitioners from interfering with the possession of respondent No. 3. The civil court was left to decide the rights of the parties in the pending suit.
Law Points
- Section 145 CrPC
- Executive Magistrate jurisdiction
- Injunction after closure of proceedings
- Civil suit pendency
- Revision against Tahsildar 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 to quash the Tahsildar's order restraining them from interfering with the possession of respondent No. 3.
Filing Reason
The Tahsildar closed Section 145 CrPC proceedings due to a pending civil suit but still passed an injunction order against the petitioners.
Previous Decisions
The Tahsildar passed an order dated 02/03/2023 closing proceedings under Section 145 CrPC but restraining the petitioners. The Revisional Court dismissed the revision on 13/03/2025.
Issues
Whether the Tahsildar could pass an injunction order after closing Section 145 CrPC proceedings.
Whether the Revisional Court erred in dismissing the revision despite finding the Tahsildar's order illegal.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Tahsildar committed an error by usurping the jurisdiction of the civil court and granting an injunction after closing the proceedings.
The Revisional Court recorded that the Tahsildar could not have granted the injunction but still dismissed the revision.
Ratio Decidendi
Once proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are closed due to the pendency of a civil suit, the Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass any order of injunction, as that power lies exclusively with 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.
The Revisional Court even though had recorded a finding that the learned Tahsildar could not have injuncted the Petitioners from interfering with the possession, still dismissed the revision.
Procedural History
The Tahsildar passed an order on 02/03/2023 closing Section 145 CrPC proceedings but restraining the petitioners. 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 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC): Section 145
