Magistrate's Role U/S 145 CrPC To Ensure Public Peace, Not Settle Property Disputes Like Civil Court: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has recently said that the role of the magistrate under Section 145 CrPC is to ensure public peace when there is a dispute over possession of property and order not to settle property disputes which are under the purview of civil courts. The court said this after noting that in the present case there were already civil proceedings ongoing between the parties before...
The Rajasthan High Court has recently said that the role of the magistrate under Section 145 CrPC is to ensure public peace when there is a dispute over possession of property and order not to settle property disputes which are under the purview of civil courts.
The court said this after noting that in the present case there were already civil proceedings ongoing between the parties before the concerned court over the disputed land, and hence the magistrate's role was limited.
For context, Section 145 CrPC lays down that when an Executive Magistrate believes that there is a conflict over land/water which is "likely to cause breach of peace", after putting reasons for such belief in a written order the magistrate can require the parties involved to come to court and submit written statements about who currently possesses the disputed property. Land or water includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land and the rents or profits of any such property.
A single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order underscored, "Once civil litigations regarding the property are already pending, the Magistrate under Section 145 CrPC should not delved into making findings on the civil/possession/title rights of the parties concerning the property. The purpose of Section 145 is to maintain public peace and order when there's a dispute over possession of property, and not to determine the rightful owner".
The Court was hearing a petition–pertaining to a land dispute–challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge which had allowed the respondent's revision petition and set aside the order of the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of provisionally attaching the disputed land and appointing a receiver as an interim measure.
A dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent regarding an agricultural land which was investigated by the concerned SHO who had filed a complaint under Section 145 CrPC before the SDM. As an interim measure, the SDM ordered provisional attachment of the land and appointment of receiver. This order was set aside by the additional sessions judge in the respondent's revision plea; against this petitioner moved the high court.
The Court said that it transpired that civil proceedings "are/were" subjudice as a suit was filed by the petitioner in the Revenue Court. The petitioner had also filed a counter claim in another suit wherein an interim injunction on the parties was also ordered to maintain status quo.
In this light, the Court said,"Once the civil proceedings are concededly in progress, the SDM's role is limited, and issuing orders like appointment of receiver amounts to overstepping the boundaries. The role of the Magistrate is to handle imminent breaches of peace, not to settle property disputes, which is within the purview of civil courts. Instead, if there is a need to prevent breach of peace, the Magistrate can take measures under Section 107 of the CrPC.”
In view of the above, the high court found no grounds to interfere with the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge of setting aside the order of the SDM, and accordingly the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Munshi Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 295