Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nirbhay Singh vs Sumat Prakash Jain on 24 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6880
1 MCRC-909-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 909 of 2025
NIRBHAY SINGH
Versus
SUMAT PRAKASH JAIN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava- Advocate for the respondents No.1
and 4.
ORDER
This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed against the
order dated 18/11/2024 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First
Additional Sessions Judge Basoda, District Vidisha in Criminal Revision
No.11/2023 by which the order dated 03/03/2023 passed by SDM, Basoda in
Case No.7/criminal/145/2022, which was passed under Section 146 of Cr.P.C. by
attaching the disputed property has been affirmed.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that an Istgasa was filed by
police alleging the possibility of breach of peace. SDM while passing order under
Section 146 of Cr.P.C. did not record that there is any urgency or possibility of
breach of peace and has passed an order of attachment and, therefore, the
aforesaid order is a by product by non-application of effect. It is further submitted
that the civil suit is pending between the parties and, therefore, in the light of
judgment passed by the High Court of Nanital in the case of Rameshwar Havelia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6880
2 MCRC-909-2025
Vs. Asian Agro Farms India Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2009 CriLJ 2753 has held
that proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. are not maintainable and parties
can approach the civil Court. Respondents have already approached the civil
Court and there is nothing on record that any order of status quo has been passed.
3. Per contra , application is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondents.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. When arguments were initiated by counsel for applicant, then a simple
question was put to counsel for applicant with regard to status and the nature of
relationship between applicant as well as respondents. It was submitted by Shri
Shrama that applicant is the vendor who has allegedly sold the property in dispute
to respondents by multiple different sale-deeds. Although, it was expected from
the applicant himself that he should have placed those sale-deeds on record, but
deliberately it was not filed. However, sale-deeds have been placed on record by
respondents. From the sale-deeds, it is clear that there is a clear recital that
possession of land has been delivered to respondents, who are the purchasers.
However, counsel for applicant refused to comment upon the sale-deeds by
submitting that he is not authorized to argue on the question of maintainability of
proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and he has been authorized only to
argue on the order passed under Section 146 of Cr.P.C. and refused to answer the
query raised by this Court.
6. Be that whatever it may be.
7. Two contentions raised by counsel for applicant for challenging the
order under Section 146 of Cr.P.C. are as under:-
(1) There is no emergency;
(2) There is no application of mind:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6880
3 MCRC-909-2025
8. Although, according to applicant, he is not authorized to argue with
regard to maintainability of proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. still he
tried to submit that on account of pendency of civil suit, the proceedings under
Section 145 of Cr.P.C. should not have been initiated.
9. This Court is not concerned about the authority given by litigant to his
counsel, but this Court is concerned about the dispute in hand and, therefore, the
attempt made by Shri Sharma to attack the proceedings under Section 145 of
Cr.P.C. on the basis of pendency of civil suit shall also be considered.
10. Today, I.A.No.6820/2025 has been filed by respondents by way of
return alongwith multiple documents.
11. All these documents are certified copies, therefore, it is clear that they
are records of judicial proceedings and in fact it was expected from the applicant
that he should have filed the same, but unfortunately that was not done.
12. Be that whatever it may.
13. Istgasa No.30/2022, which was filed by police, reads as under:-
" ीमान ् एस.ड .एम. महोदय गंजबासौदा िनवेदन है क समदपुर गंज
बासौदा ीमान के े ा तगत आता है आज दनांक ाम समदपुर म
सुिमत काश जैन के खेत म अनावेदक अनावेदक पु पे पता िनभय
िसंह दांगी उ 26 वष एवं िनभय िसंह पता गंगाराम दांगी उ 51 वष
िनवासीगण समदपुर उसक सोयाबीन क फसल काट रहे थे सुिमत
काश जैन एवं उनका लड़का वैभव जैन के ारा मना करने पर उ दोनो
लोग गाली गु ार कर मारपीट करने उ ा हो गये तभी पुिलस पहुच ं ी
पुिलस वालो ने आरोपीगणो को काफ समझाने का यास कया तो
आरोपी िनभय िसंह दांगी ारा अपने ऊपर िम ट का तेल डाल िलया एवं
आग लगाने क धमक दे ने लगा अगर आरोपीगणो को मौके पर धारा
151 जा. फौ. म िगर तार नह ं कये गये होते तो अव य ह बड़ घटना
घ टत कर दे ते थाने पर दोनो को व इ तगासा मांक 30/2022 धारा
151,107,116 (3) जा. फौ. का तैयार कया गया ज हे यायालय पेश
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6880
4 MCRC-909-2025
कया जावेगा"
14. Thus, it is clear that when respondents were harvesting the crop, then
applicant created Rukus as a result the police also reached on the spot and tried to
pacify the situation. At that time, applicant poured Kerosene oil on him and
started extending threat that he would commit suicide and accordingly, it appears
that accused persons were arrested under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. Thus conduct of
applicant speaks in volumes about the possibility of breach of peace. Therefore,
the police was right in initiating the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.
complaining the possibility of breach of peace. That is not the end of the matter.
15. SDM Basoda, District Vidisha by order dated 03/03/2023 passed in
Case No.7/criminal/145/2022 had attached the property. FIR in crime
No.173/2025 has been registered at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha on
12/03/2025 to the effect that order dated 03/03/2023 passed by SDM Basoda,
District Vidisha was challenged by applicant in criminal revision, which was
dismissed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions
Judge Basoda, District Vidisha in Criminal Revision No.11/2023 on 18/11/2025.
In spite of that applicant had tried to harvest the standing crop and it was
specifically mentioned that applicant is violating the order dated 03/03/2023,
which was affirmed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional
Sessions Judge Basoda in criminal revision No.11/2023 by its order dated
18/11/2024. Thus, it appears that applicant has no respect for the law. Even after
alienating the property, he is trying to create Rukus in peaceful possession of
receiver. Thus, it is a case where the emergency was writ large on its own face,
warranting an order under Section 146 of Cr.P.C.
16. So far as the submission with regard to non-maintainability of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6880
5 MCRC-909-2025
proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. are concerned, it is true that the
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and
Ors. reported in AIR 1985 SC 472, it is desirable that the parties to the litigation
must approach the civil Court for obtaining interim orders.
17. In the present case, the respondents have also filed a suit for declaration
of title and an application for grant of interim injunction has been filed which is
pending. On the face of arguments, it appeared that arguments advanced by
counsel for applicant are very impressive but on the deeper scrutiny of the same,
it is clear that applicant after having sold the property is trying to take advantage
of technicalities in order to deprive the vendors from enjoying the fruits of the
same. If the applicant was of the view that sale-deeds executed by him are null
and void, then he should have approached civil Court for declaration of his title,
but he did not do that and in spite of handing over the possession of property in
dispute of purchasers, he is trying to illegally dispossess the
purchasers/respondents. The unruly conduct of applicant on the ground was also
reflected in the manner in which arguments were advanced by the counsel for
applicant.
18. Since, the applicant after having sold property to respondents had tried
to illegally dispossess the respondents and also went to the extent of threatening
to the police of committing suicide after pouring Kerosene oil on him and in spite
of an order of attachment by SDM, which was affirmed by Sessions Court,
applicant is still trying to cut the standing crops, this Court is of considered
opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.
19. Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed with cost of
Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by applicant within a period of one month in the
Registry of this Court, failing which, not only the Principal Registrar of this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6880
6 MCRC-909-2025
Court shall initiate proceedings for recovery of cost, but shall also register a case
for contempt of Court.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
