Magistrate Cannot Make Observations Regarding Rights Of Parties On Property While Dropping Proceedings U/Sec 145 CrPC : Supreme Court

While dropping the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC because of the pendency of civil litigations, a Magistrate cannot make any observations or return any findings as regards rights of the parties qua the property in question, the Supreme Court observed.

Section 145 deals with the power of an Executive Magistrate in cases where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace. It provides that 'whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.'

In the present case, the Magistrate after noticing that different cases are sub-judice in civil courts for the same property between these parties dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 145 CrPC. However while doing so, the Magistrate directed to maintain status quo on the spot by the time competent civil court passes any final decision. In this Special Leave Petition, the issue raised was regarding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue such directions.

"While dropping the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') because of the pendency of civil litigations, the learned Magistrate could not be considered justified in making any observations or returning any findings as regards rights of the parties qua the property in question. The learned Magistrate had proceeded to record the findings, as if the possession of the respondent on the questioned property was proved from the documentary evidence from the date of issuing notice and two months prior to the same and then, had also proceeded to order that the second party would not interfere in the peaceful possession of the first party until the competent Civil Court passes final judgment in the matter, and that status quo shall be maintained.", the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.

While disposing the SLP, the bench observed that the Magistrate ought to have left all the relevant aspects for consideration of the competent civil court and without recording any finding in the matter.

Case details

Mohd Shakir vs State of Uttar Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 727 | SLP (Crl.) No. 5061/2022 | 26 August 2022 | Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 145 - While dropping the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC because of the pendency of civil litigations, the learned Magistrate could not be considered justified in making any observations or returning any findings as regards rights of the parties qua the property in question. 

Click here to Read/Download Order