Imminent Threat To Public Peace Must Be Shown For Taking Action U/S 145 CrPC, Can't Be A Vague Assertion: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that before initiating proceeding under Section 145 CrPC pertaining to procedure for dispute over land which may breach peace, circumstances suggesting imminent danger of breach of peace or alike situations to presume such instant threat has to be shown with cogent and reliable material.

For context, Section 145 CrPC lays down the procedure to be followed where dispute concerning land or water was likely to cause breach of peace. Section 146, CrPC gives power to the Magistrate to attach the subject of the dispute and appoint a receiver if he considers the case to be one of emergency or if he decides that none of the parties were then in such possession as referred to in section 145. 

In doing so the court also reiterated that there cannot be a vague assertion on such circumstances and be proved through strong material. 

Justice Farjand Ali after referring to the provisions said, “From bare perusal of these Sections, this Court feels that before initiating a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. or moving an application under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C., circumstances suggesting imminent danger of breach of peace or like circumstance to presume instant threat to public peace and tranquility has to be shown with the assistance of cogent and reliable material. It should not be a vague or bald assertion rather should be supported with strong material. The law in respect of proceeding under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. is no more res integra that before initiating any proceeding under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. there has to be a serious question of possession and a situation where it is not comprehensible as to which party was in possession of the land in question at the relevant point of time or the circumstances suggesting that parties are bent upon to take forcible possession of the immovable property and therefore, there is an imminent danger to public peace and tranquility.”

The bench of was hearing a petition filed against the Trial Court order that allowed a revision petition and set aside the order passed by a Magistrate under Section 145 and 146 of CrPC in a criminal case ordering attachment of a disputed property and appointment of a receiver.

The petitioner, who was representing the villagers of Guda-Kallan, had filed a complaint that the respondents had illegally occupied a public land and were unlawfully undertaking construction on that.

Following this complaint, the SHO initiated proceedings under Sections 145 and 146, CrPC before the Magistrate who ordered attachment of land and appointment of the SHO as receiver.

This order was successfully challenged before the Trial Court via a Revision Petition, which held that the dispute was going on for 43 years and was already subject to civil litigation, and thus making interference under Sections 145 and 146 was unwarranted. Hence, the Trial Court ruling was challenged before the Court.

After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that, “Revisional Judge has appropriately analyzed the precedents set by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which establish that when a matter is of such a nature which falls within the jurisdiction of civil courts, ordinarily criminal courts should refrain from intervening and should not appoint a receiver unless emergent circumstances desired by law are present.”

It was held that bare perusal of Sections 145 and 146, CrPC reflected that before initiating proceedings, existence of danger of breach of peace could not be a bald assertion but had to be shown and supported using strong cogent material.

Furthermore, affirming the ruling given by the Trial Court to allow the revision petition, the Court highlighted that in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v State of U.P. and Ors., the Supreme Court had held that since the civil proceedings were already undergoing, continuing parallel criminal proceedings was unjustified. It was emphasized that civil court's decree was binding on criminal court and multiplicity of litigation had to be avoided.

In this background, the Trial Court order was upheld and the petition filed was dismissed.

Title: Shyam Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 113

Click Here To Read/Download Order