Purushottam vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:50611)
2025 Latest Caselaw 15936 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Purushottam vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:50611) on 24 November, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:50611]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2930/2025

1.       Purushottam S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
         Chaudhariyo Ki Gali, Pokharan, Jaisalmer.
2.       Tarachand S/o Nakhatmal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
         Rajmathai, P.s. Phalsund, Jaisalmer.
3.       Suraj Devi W/o Satyanarayan, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
         Bhadhriya, Pokharan, Jaisalmer.
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Smt. Ruchi W/o Nirmal Kumar, D/o Ummedmal, R/o
         House No. 23A, Paota C-Road, Shakti Nagar Gali No. 1,
         Jodhpur, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Manish S/o
         Ummedmal, R/o Sumer Bhawan, Dubgaro Ki Gali, Moti
         Chowk, Jodhpur.
3.       Bhanwar Lal S/o Parma Ram, R/o Didaniya, P.s. Pokharan,
         Jaisalmer.
4.       Bharat S/o Bhanwar Lal, R/o Didaniya, P.s. Pokharan,
         Jaisalmer.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Shri Ram Choudhary, PP
                                 Mr. Deepesh Birla



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

                                     ORDER

(i) Arguments concluded on: 09/09/2025

(ii) Judgment reserved on: 09/09/2025

(iii) Full judgment/Operative part: Full judgment

(iv) Judgment pronounced on : 24 / 11 /2025

1. The instant Misc. Petition under Sections 528 BNSS (482

Cr.PC.) has been filed against the order dated 01.04.2025 passed

by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge, Pokharan, Jaisalmer (Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50611] (2 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025]

in Criminal Revision Petition No. 22/2024, whereby the revision

petition of the respondent no.2 has been allowed and the order

dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Subdivisional officer,

Pokharan in case no. 15/2022 is set aside by directing that

possession of the land in question be handed over to respondent

no.2.

2. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts necessary

for the disposal of this petition are that respondent no.2 filed a

complaint under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, alleging that the respondent no.2 owned a plot

of land bearing Khasra No. 936, situated on the Jodhpur-Jaisalmer

road, measuring 102.5 x 170 feet, which had been gifted to the

respondent no.2 by her father, through a registered gift deed. It

was alleged that during the applicant's absence from Pokharan

due to her mother's illness and subsequent demise, respondents

no.3 and 4 unlawfully broke open the locks of the said plot, took

possession, and established a nursery in the name of "Vivek

Nursery." Pursuant to the complaint and subsequent investigation,

an FIR under Sections 447, 427, and 34 of IPC was registered,

and proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C were initiated,

culminating in the attachment of the property by order dated

02.01.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer,

Pokharan.

3. Upon issuance of notice dated 06.01.2023 and attachment of

the plot, the petitioners became aware of the proceedings and

were impleaded as parties. The petitioners contended that the

disputed plot had been sold to them by the respondent no.2 on

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50611] (3 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025]

30.12.2017 for a total consideration of ₹61,00,000, possession

having been handed over on the same date. They asserted

continuous possession and operation of a nursery on the plot prior

to the attachment and challenged the proceedings as illegal and

contrary to Section 145(6) Cr.P.C. The petitioners also instituted a

civil suit for specific performance of the sale agreement before the

learned ADJ, Pokharan which came to be registered as Civil

Original Suit no. 03/2023. Along with this suit an application under

order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been preferred, thereafter, learned

trial Court vide its order dated 24.09.2024 has rejected the

application and the said order is presently pending consideration

before this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3188/2024.

4. After hearing the parties, the learned SDO vide order dated

25.10.2024, disposed of the proceedings under Section 145

Cr.P.C, holding that since possession had been taken from the

petitioners and a civil suit between the parties was pending,

possession be restored to the petitioners and respondents no.3

and 4, restraining respondent no.2 from interference without

orders from a competent court. The property was accordingly

released from the receiver and possession was restored.

5. Aggrieved thereby, respondent no.2 preferred Criminal

Revision No. 22/2024 before the learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Pokharan, which was allowed vide order dated

01.04.2025, directing that possession of the property be handed

over to respondent no.2. The present petition has been filed

assailing the said order on the ground that it has been passed

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50611] (4 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025]

without due consideration of the facts and material on record,

resulting in a manifest abuse of the process of law.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

impugned order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the learned

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Pokharan, is wholly arbitrary

and unsustainable in law. It was contended that the learned

revisional Court failed to appreciate that the petitioners were in

lawful possession of the property in question pursuant to a sale

transaction dated 30.12.2017, wherein the applicant-respondent

no.2 had agreed to sell the plot to the petitioners for a total

consideration of ₹61,00,000. Substantial payment was made

through cheques as well as in cash, and possession was duly

handed over on the same date.

8. It was argued that since possession had been transferred to

the petitioners long before the initiation of proceedings under

Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C, the question of treating them as

trespassers did not arise. The learned revisional Court erred in

directing restoration of possession to respondent no.2 without

considering that a civil suit for specific performance of the

agreement to sell is already pending before the competent civil

Court, wherein the issue of title and ownership is sub judice.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Section

145(6) Cr.P.C, no party in lawful possession can be dispossessed

save in accordance with due process of law, and the revisional

Court's order effectively deprived the petitioners of possession

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50611] (5 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025]

without adjudication by a competent civil forum. It was further

contended that the learned SDO had rightly observed that since

the property had already been attached and possession was taken

from the petitioners, and a civil dispute was pending, it was

appropriate to restore the possession to the party last in settled

possession. Hence, the impugned revisional order is contrary to

law and liable to be set aside.

10. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Shakir Vs

State of UP & Ors passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 5061/2022 and

upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate bench of this Court at

Jodhpur in the case of Mohd. Ramjan & Anr. Vs. State and

Ors. passed in S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4499/2023 and at

Jaipur in the case of Banshi vs. Ram Niwas passed in S.B.

Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1130/1993.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed

the petition and submitted that the present proceedings are wholly

misconceived and amounts to an abuse of the process of this

Court, inasmuch as the petitioners have approached this Court

after deliberately suppressing material facts and documents. It

was submitted that respondent no.2 had initially filed a complaint

under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C on 24.11.2022 alleging

forcible dispossession from her own plot bearing Khasra No.936.

Prior thereto, an FIR dated 12.11.2022 had already been lodged

and, after investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 447 and

427/34 IPC was filed against the petitioners. Pursuant to the said

complaint, the learned SDM directed the SHO, Pokharan, to

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50611] (6 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025]

submit a factual/mauka report, and the Patwari's report, as well

as a subsequent detailed factual report prepared in the presence

of Advocate Iqbal Khan, categorically indicated that respondent

no.2 was in possession of the disputed plot.

12. It was further submitted that on the basis of the said factual

reports, the learned SDM rightly ordered attachment of the

property and appointed the SHO, Pokharan, as receiver on

02.01.2023. Learned counsel contended that after the petitioners

moved an impleadment application, without serving any notice or

copy upon respondent no.2, the SDM, without affording an

opportunity of hearing to respondent no.2, allowed their

impleadment. Objections in this regard were duly recorded in the

order-sheets of the SDM Court but remained unaddressed.

13. Learned counsel then submitted that after the petitioners

entered the proceedings, the original factual/mauka report was

clandestinely replaced with a fabricated/duplicate report, in which

the possession of respondent no.2 was erased and substituted to

favour the petitioners. This forged report, unlike the original, did

not bear the signature of the advocate who was present at the

time of preparation. Applications seeking an inquiry into the

alleged tampering and seeking an explanation from the

Investigating Officer were filed but no action was taken by the

SDM. It was pointed out that in the revisional proceedings, these

objections were re-agitated, and the learned revisional Court

initiated an enquiry, directed attachment of the salary of the

Investigating Officer, and sought his explanation. In his written

reply, the Investigating Officer categorically admitted that the land

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50611] (7 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025]

and possession stood in favour of respondent no.2. Thus, the

revisional Court found that the SDM's order was founded upon a

forged report and therefore correctly exercised its revisional

jurisdiction.

14. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 further submitted that

the petitioners themselves had instituted a civil suit for specific

performance in 2023 along with an application under Order 39

Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The application came to be rejected by the

civil Court by a reasoned order recording a specific finding that

possession of the disputed land was with respondent no.2. It was

urged that such a finding by a competent civil Court was binding

and had been expressly brought to the notice of the SDM, yet the

SDM failed to consider the same while dismissing the complaint

under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C.

15. It was also contended that the petitioners' claim of a sale

transaction of 2017 is an afterthought and is contradicted by their

own documents. In the legal notice dated 25.11.2022, the

petitioners claimed that possession had been handed over to them

in 2017 and that the land had been leased to one Bharat Kumar,

whereas the rent agreement produced by them shows that the

tenancy, if any, commenced only on 11.10.2022. Even the

consideration claimed in different documents is inconsistent: the

FIR lodged on 13.01.2023 mentions ₹60 lakhs, while the legal

notice claims ₹61 lakhs. Learned counsel pointed out that

respondent no.2 had earlier entered into a sale agreement in 2012

with one Idan Singh for ₹1,21,00,000, demonstrating that the

value of the land was far higher than what the petitioners now

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50611] (8 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025]

allege, which renders their version inherently improbable. It was

submitted that the petitioners have also taken inconsistent stands

sometimes alleging an oral agreement with respondent no.2 alone

and at other times claiming a joint agreement with Idan Singh.

16. Learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Abid & Ors vs Ravi

Naresh and Ors passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 5444 of 2022;

Prakash Chand Sachdeva vs State reported in 1994 AIR

1436; Jhummamal Alias Devandas Vs State of Madhya

Pradesh & Ors reported in 1988 AIR 1973 and by the

Allahabad High Court in Minta Devi vs Anant Ram @ Antu

passed in Criminal Revision 432/1996.

17. On these premises, learned counsel submitted that the order

dated 01.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Pokharan, is a well-reasoned and lawful order based on a

correct appreciation of the documents and material available on

record, including the forged report and the findings of the civil

Court, and therefore warrants no interference under Section 528

BNSS (482 Cr.P.C). It was thus prayed that the present petition

be dismissed.

18. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned

counsel for the parties and perused the material available on

record.

19. This Court finds that the core issue pertains to the question

of possession over the disputed property. It is not in dispute that

civil proceedings between the parties, regarding ownership and

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50611] (9 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025]

specific performance, are already pending before the competent

civil Court.

20. It is settled law that proceedings under Sections 145 and

146 Cr.P.C are preventive in nature and confined to the

maintenance of public peace and order. The Magistrate is not

expected to adjudicate upon ownership or title. In all the

judgments cited supra, wherein a civil dispute regarding the same

property was pending, the Courts have consistently observed that

when civil litigation is already sub-judice, the criminal Court

should not pass orders that may prejudice the rights of the parties

in such litigation, and that status quo should ordinarily be

maintained.

21. It is an admitted fact that a suit for specific performance has

been instituted on 18.03.2023 before the Court of the learned

ADJ, Pokharan, along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1

& 2 CPC. The said application came to be rejected on 24.09.2024

with the observation that the petitioners had failed to prove that

possession was in their favour. However, the learned SDO, on

25.10.2024, passed an order directing that possession be given to

the present petitioners. In this context, it is relevant to refer to

the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Abid (supra),

wherein the Hon'ble Court held that proceedings under Sections

145/146 Cr.P.C must come to an end once the civil Court is seized

of the matter. The Court held as follows:

"1. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at a considerable length and carefully perused the material placed on record.

2. The controversy in this case pertains to Zamindari Plot No.3082, consisting of some shops

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50611] (10 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025]

and a residential house constructed on it, situated in Mohalla Angooribagh, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh.

3. While the petitioners claim that they have purchased the subject property by way of four consecutive registered Sale Deeds dated 05.10.2020, the case of the respondents is that the suit property was purchased by their predecessors-in-interest way back on 16.11.1949 by way of a valid Sale Deed.

4. It is, however, an admitted fact that the petitioners have already filed a suit for injunction in which ex-parte ad-interim injunction has been granted by the Civil Court, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh on 05.12.2020. Once the Civil Court is seized of the matter, it goes without saying that the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. cannot proceed and must come to an end. The interse rights of the parties regarding title or possession are eventually to be determined by the Civil Court.

5. In this view of the matter, and without expressing any views on merits on the rival claims of the parties, we dispose of this Special Leave Petition with a direction that the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 03.06.2022 shall continue to operate as an interim measure till the Civil Court, Faizabad passes an appropriate order after hearing both the parties.

6. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is, however, directed that both the parties shall not create any third party rights or encumberances over the property in dispute.

7. With these observations and directions, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

8. As a sequel thereto, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of."

22. Furthermore, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Munshi

Ram vs. State & Ors., S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.

4923/2024, has held that the Magistrate's role under Section

145 Cr.P.C is confined to ensuring public peace and is not akin to

that of a civil Court. The Court held:

"8. Once civil litigations regarding the property are already pending, the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C should not delved into making findings on the civil/possession/title rights of the parties concerning the property. The purpose of

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50611] (11 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025]

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. Two cases civil/revenue suits had already been filed regarding the property, making it thus unnecessary for the SDM to interfere in the matter.

9. 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 Cr.P.C."

23. In the present case, it is an admitted position that a civil suit

for specific performance between the parties is already pending

before the competent civil Court, wherein the issues relating to

ownership, title, lawful possession and enforceability of the

agreement in question shall be adjudicated. In such

circumstances, any direction under Sections 145-146 Cr.P.C

compelling delivery of possession to either side would virtually

amount to a pre-determination of disputed civil rights, which the

criminal Court is not competent to undertake. The learned

revisional Court, while setting aside the SDO's order, proceeded

on the premise that restoration of possession to respondent no.2

was necessary to prevent further breach of peace and that the

SDO had failed to exercise powers properly. The more appropriate

course, especially when civil proceedings are already pending,

would be to preserve the existing state of affairs without deciding

the possession one way or the other. If at all any preventive

measure was warranted to maintain public tranquillity, the SDO

could have resorted to proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C, as

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50611] (12 of 12) [CRLMP-2930/2025]

preventive jurisdiction must operate with minimal interference in

civil rights until the civil Court finally settles the dispute.

24. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion and the

principles laid down in the judgments cited above, this Court is of

the considered view that the dispute between the parties is

essentially civil in nature and is already sub judice before the

competent civil Court. Accordingly, while the findings of the

learned revisional Court regarding the preventive nature of the

proceedings are upheld, it is directed that the status quo

regarding possession over the property in question as per order of

the revisional Court shall be maintained by both parties until final

adjudication of the civil suit.

25. The parties are further directed not to disturb the existing

possession or create any third-party interest in the property till

the final disposal of the civil suit.

26. It is made clear that no observations made in this order shall

have any bearing on the merits of the civil proceedings, and all

submissions of the parties shall remain open to be urged before

the civil Court, which shall decide the matter strictly in accordance

with law.

27. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid

directions.

28. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 69-m-singh/-

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:17:13 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)