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. That revision had been filed 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 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 once the Tahsildar closed the proceedings, he had no jurisdiction to pass any injunctive order, as that would usurp the function of the civil court. The revisional court, though it recorded a finding that the Tahsildar could not have injuncted the petitioners, still dismissed the revision. The High Court, after hearing counsel, held that the Tahsildar's order was patently illegal because after dropping the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, the executive magistrate ceases to have any power to pass any order regarding possession. The High Court quashed both the Tahsildar's order and the revisional court's order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 145 CrPC - Executive Magistrate's Power - Injunction After Closure - The Tahsildar, after closing proceedings under Section 145 CrPC due to pendency of a civil suit, cannot pass an order restraining parties from interfering with possession, as such an order usurps the jurisdiction of the civil court. The revisional court erred in upholding the order. (Paras 1-4)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 145 CrPC - Revision - Scope - The revisional court, while upholding the Tahsildar's order, failed to correct the patent illegality of granting an injunction after closure of proceedings. The High Court set aside both orders. (Paras 3-4)
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, quashing and setting aside the order dated 02/03/2023 passed by the Tahsildar and the order dated 13/03/2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur.
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) 126
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 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 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 could pass an injunctive order after closing proceedings under Section 145 CrPC.
Whether the revisional court erred in upholding such an order.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Tahsildar committed an error apparent on the face of the record by closing the proceedings but still injuncting them, thereby usurping the jurisdiction of the civil court.
The respondents supported the orders, but the High Court found the Tahsildar's order illegal.
Ratio Decidendi
Once proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are closed, the executive magistrate ceases to have jurisdiction to pass any order regarding possession, as such matters must be decided by the civil court. An injunction order after closure is patently illegal.
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...
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 writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC): Section 145
