Parallel Proceedings U/S 145 Of CrPC Are Unsustainable When Civil Suit Concerning Same Property Is Already Pending: Patna HC
The Patna High Court has held that parallel proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.PC are unsustainable when a civil suit concerning the same property is already pending, and that an attachment order under Section 146(1) Cr.PC requires an “emergent situation” which is more than a mere apprehension of breach of peace.Justice Jitendra Kumar observed, “It is also pertinent to point out...
The Patna High Court has held that parallel proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.PC are unsustainable when a civil suit concerning the same property is already pending, and that an attachment order under Section 146(1) Cr.PC requires an “emergent situation” which is more than a mere apprehension of breach of peace.
Justice Jitendra Kumar observed, “It is also pertinent to point out that if a Civil Suit regarding title and possession is pending in regard to the property in question in a Civil Court, a parallel proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC is not permissible. It would be sheer wastage of public time and money. The Civil Court is also competent to adjudicate the dispute regarding actual possession of the property between the parties and pass interim order during pendency of the Civil Suit.”
“Hence, no purpose would be served by permitting parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC by Executive Magistrate. It goes without saying that outcome of proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC is subject to outcome of Civil Suit and the order of Civil Court is binding upon the criminal Courts. Hence, there is no justification for continuation of parallel proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC, if Civil Suit is already pending in Civil Court in regard to the landed property in question,” Justice Kumar added.
The above ruling was delivered in a Criminal Miscellaneous petition where the petitioners had challenged the order of attachment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Nawada.
The case arose when one Sarojani Devi filed a petition under Section 144 Cr.PC seeking preventive orders regarding a disputed landed property. The Executive Magistrate had initially closed the proceedings under Section 144 Cr.PC and advised the parties to pursue a civil suit. Subsequently, Sarojani Devi filed another petition under Section 145 Cr.PC, alleging that the petitioners were attempting to forcibly dispossess her, which might result in a breach of peace.
The Circle Officer's report indicated that the purchasers of the land were already in possession and that the dispute related to the title of the property rather than actual possession. Despite this, the Executive Magistrate initiated Section 145 Cr.PC proceedings and later attached the property under Section 146(1) Cr.PC, citing tension between the parties and the possibility of a breach of peace.
The Court observed, “The preliminary order passed under Section 145(1) Cr.PC is itself not sustainable, vitiating the subsequent impugned order passed under Section 146(1) Cr.PC... Prior to conclusion of the inquiry under Section 145 Cr.PC, the Executive Magistrate could attach the property only on the basis of an emergent situation and emergent situation as contemplated under Section 146(1) Cr.PC connotes much more than mere apprehension of breach of peace. Such breach of peace must be appearing to be imminent.”
The Court further observed that the Circle Officer's report provided no reference to any dispute over actual possession or any involvement of the public at large, concluding that the dispute was private in nature and did not warrant proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC.
“Executive Magistrate had passed the preliminary order in the light of the report of the Circle Officer. But in the report of the Circle Officer, there is no reference to any dispute as to actual possession of the property or any attempt for forceful dispossession. There is also no reference that public at large are affected and involved in the dispute. The dispute is confined only to the parties concerned,” the Court stated.
The Court further added, “the learned Executive Magistrate appears to have exceeded his jurisdiction encroaching upon that of the Civil Court, subjecting the parties concerned to unnecessary litigation before himself. He should have advised the parties to move Civil Court.”
The Court emphasized that the Executive Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.PC is limited to situations where there is a real and immediate threat to public peace due to disputes over possession.
The Court quashed both the order of attachment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the order upholding it by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, holding that the Executive Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction and acted contrary to the law.
Case Title: Ram Padarath Singh and ors vs The State Of Bihar and anr
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 18
