[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amra Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13050) on 18 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:13050]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 691/2026
1. Amra Ram S/o Dama Ram, Aged About 49 Years,
Residents Of Ramsar Agore, Tehsil Ramsar District Barmer
2. Dalu Ram S/o Dama Ram, Aged About 47 Years,
Residents Of Ramsar Agore, Tehsil Ramsar District Barmer
3. Kalu Ram S/o Ganga Ram, Aged About 68 Years,
Residents Of Ramsar Agore, Tehsil Ramsar District Barmer
4. Padma Ram S/o Chetan Ram, Aged About 60 Years,
Residents Of Ramsar Agore, Tehsil Ramsar District Barmer
5. Ganesh Kumar S/o Amra Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
Residents Of Ramsar Agore, Tehsil Ramsar District Barmer
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Ramsar, Tehsil Ramsar, District
Ramsar
3. Prayag Singh S/o Tan Singh, Resident Of Ramsar Tehsil
Ramsar District Barmer.
4. Samundra Singh S/o Tan Singh, Resident Of Ramsar
Tehsil Ramsar District Barmer.
5. Jeevraj Singh S/o Narayan Singh, Resident Of Ramsar
Tehsilramsar District Barmer.
6. Hitpal Singh S/o Leel Singh, Resident Of Ramsar Tehsil
Ramsar District Barmer.
7. Chhotu Singh S/o Fateh Singh, Resident Of Ramsar Tehsil
Ramsar District Barmer.
8. Jograj Singh S/o Kan Singh, Resident Of Ramsar Tehsil
Ramsar District Barmer.
9. Chhail Singh S/o Balwant Singh, Resident Of Ramsar
Tehsil Ramsar District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Godara
Mr. G.S. Dewasi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Mr. Gulab Singh Bhati
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:27:12 AM)
(Downloaded on 24/03/2026 at 08:34:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13050] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-691/2026]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/03/2026
1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been
preferred under Section 528 BNSS assailing the order dated
14.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Barmer in Criminal Revision No. 14/2025 whereby the revisional
court, while allowing the revision filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 9,
set aside the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Ramsar and remanded the matter back for fresh
consideration.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition, in brief,
is that proceedings came to be initiated before the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Ramsar under the provisions of Sections 164 and 165
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in relation to a
dispute concerning immovable property. The Sub Divisional
Magistrate, vide order dated 26.03.2025, directed attachment of
the disputed land and appointed the Station House Officer as
receiver. Aggrieved thereby, respondent Nos. 3 to 9 preferred a
revision petition, which came to be allowed by the learned
revisional court, setting aside the said order and remanding the
matter back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for passing a fresh
order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing
to the parties.
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:27:12 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13050] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-691/2026]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was justified in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there being a clear
apprehension of breach of peace, and that the revisional court has
erred in interfering with the same. It has further been contended
that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was in the
nature of an interlocutory order and the revision itself was not
maintainable.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent No.3 to 9 has supported the impugned
order and submitted that the revisional court has rightly found
that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate suffers
from non-compliance of statutory requirements and lack of proper
reasoning, and therefore no interference is called for by this Court.
5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced at the
Bar and has perused the material available on record.
6. From a perusal of the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the
Sub Divisional Magistrate, it is evident that though reference has
been made to the existence of dispute and likelihood of breach of
peace, however, there is no clear and reasoned satisfaction
recorded in terms of Section 164 BNSS. The order does not reflect
due compliance of the procedure contemplated under the said
provision, nor does it indicate any cogent basis for invoking the
extraordinary power of attachment under Section 165 BNSS. The
said provision can be invoked only upon recording objective
satisfaction regarding the existence of an emergent situation or
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:27:12 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13050] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-691/2026]
the inability of the Magistrate to determine possession, which is
conspicuously absent in the present case.
7. The learned revisional court, upon examination of the record,
has found that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate
is a non-speaking order and that the statutory mandate has not
been adhered to. The revisional court has, therefore, set aside the
order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. This Court
does not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the
approach adopted by the revisional court warranting interference
in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS.
8. At the same time, it is considered appropriate to observe
that the proceedings under Sections 164 and 165 BNSS are
preventive in nature and require strict adherence to the statutory
scheme as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this Court from time to time.
9. Accordingly, while upholding the order of remand, it is
directed that the Executive Magistrate shall pass a fresh order
strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the spirit of the
statutory provisions as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this Court, and after affording adequate
opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, uninfluenced by
any observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in the
revisional jurisdiction.
10. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of in
the above terms.
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:27:12 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13050] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-691/2026]
11. The stay petition as well as all pending applications also
stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
122-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:27:12 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
