[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajpal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:13315]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1521/2024
Rajpal Singh S/o Shri Pannaram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o
Dabdiya, Police Station Gacchipura, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman, Rajasthan, Presently At Central University,
Bandrasindhi, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Pannaram S/o Shri Bhugnaram, Aged About 78 Years, R/o
Dabdiya, Police Station Gacchipura, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
3. Pushpendra S/o Shri Narendra Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Dabdiya, Police Station Gacchipura, District
Deedwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
4. Ashok S/o Shri Narendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Dabdiya, Police Station Gacchipura, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jhamak Nagda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bajrang Singh
Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 15/01/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 15/01/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/03/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant criminal revision petition, preferred under
Section 438 of the BNSS, has been instituted on behalf of the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:47:36 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13315] (2 of 9) [CRLR-1521/2024]
petitioner assailing the legality and propriety of the order dated
18.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Makrana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan, in Criminal Revision No.
18/2024, whereby the revision petition preferred by the
respondents came to be allowed and the order dated 04.09.2024
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Makrana in
proceedings No. 6/2023 was set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case, concisely stated, are that the
petitioner, claiming to be a co-sharer in agricultural land bearing
Khasra Nos. 81 and 81/1 admeasuring 3.7088 hectares situated at
village Besaroli, alleged that the said land originally belonged to
Pannaram, who is the father of the petitioner and that he has
been in possession and cultivation thereof.
2.1 It was contended that Pannaram executed a gift deed in
favour of the private respondents with an intention to deprive the
petitioner of his lawful share, whereafter proceedings were
initiated before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Makrana, which are still
pending. The petitioner further alleged that the respondents are
attempting to forcibly dispossess him, damage crops, and create
law and order issues, giving rise to an apprehension of breach of
peace.
2.2 Upon police inquiry, the learned SDM, Makrana, vide order
dated 04.09.2024, directed attachment of the disputed property
and appointment of a receiver. However, the said order was set
aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Makrana, vide
impugned order dated 18.11.2024, passed in a revision petition
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:47:36 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13315] (3 of 9) [CRLR-1521/2024]
preferred by the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
has preferred the present revision petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties
and perused the material available on record.
4. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is
emerging that the disputed khasra Nos. 81 and 81/1 stood
recorded in the name of respondent No.2 as khatedar. It is also
not in dispute that a civil suit seeking cancellation of the transfer
executed in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, which came to be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for want of jurisdiction and
the appeal thereagainst is stated to be pending before this Court.
Further, an order dated 28.10.2021 has been passed by this Court
restraining further alienation of the disputed property. It is also an
admitted fact that petitioner has instituted proceedings before the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Makrana, seeking partition, declaration and
permanent injunction, wherein an order of status quo has been
passed. Notably, in the said proceedings, petitioner himself has
acknowledged joint possession of the disputed land with the
respondents.
5. It is imperative to discuss the precedents set by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court concerning Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. and to
fully comprehend the legal position, it is necessary to first
reproduce these provisions, which are provided below for ready
reference:-
"145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is
likely to cause breach of peace.--
(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of
a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:47:36 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13315] (4 of 9) [CRLR-1521/2024]
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.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression "land or
water" includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other
produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property.
(3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by
this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or
persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall
be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or
near the subject of dispute.
(4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or
the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject
of dispute, persue the statements so put in, hear the parties,
receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such
further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible,
decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of
the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of
the subject of dispute:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has
been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next
before the date on which the report of a police officer or other
information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and
before the date of his order under sub-section (1), he may treat
the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession
on the date of his order under sub-section (1).
(5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to
attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no
such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case
the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further
proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such
cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1)
shall be final.
(6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or
should under the proviso to sub -section (4) be treated as being,
in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order
declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until
evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all
disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when he
proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to
possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.
(b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and
published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3).
(7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate
may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be
made a party to the proceeding and shall thereupon continue the
inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal
representative of a deceased party for the purposes of such
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:47:36 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13315] (5 of 9) [CRLR-1521/2024]
proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the
deceased party shall be made parties thereto.
(8) If the Magistrate is of opinion that any crop or other produce
of the property, the subject of dispute in a proceeding under this
section pending before him, is subject to speedy and natural
decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of
such property, and, upon the completion of the inquiry, shall
make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale-
proceeds thereof, as he thinks fit.
(9) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the
proceedings under this section, on the application of either party,
issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to
produce any document or thing.
(10) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation
of powers of the Magistrate to proceed under section 107."
"146. Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint
receiver.--
(1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under
sub-section (1) of section 145 considers the case to be one of
emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in
such possession as is referred to in section 145, or if he is unable
to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such
possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of
dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the
parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the
possession thereof: Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw
the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no
longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the
subject of dispute.
(2) When the Magistrate attaches the subject of dispute, he may,
if no receiver in relation to such subject of dispute has been
appointed by any Civil Court, make such arrangements as he
considers proper for looking after the property or if he thinks fit,
appoint a receiver thereof, who shall have, subject to the control
of the Magistrate, all the powers of a receiver appointed under
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908):Provided that in the
event of a receiver being subsequently appointed in relation to
the subject of dispute by any Civil Court, the Magistrate--
(a) shall order the receiver appointed by him to hand over
the possession of the subject of dispute to the receiver
appointed by the Civil Court and shall thereafter discharge
the receiver appointed by him;
(b) may make such other incidental or consequential orders
as may be just."
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
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:47:36 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13315] (6 of 9) [CRLR-1521/2024]
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 law in
this regard has been discussed and dealt with by this Court in the
matter of Ashoknath Chela Kevalnath Vs. State of Rajasthan
passed in SBCRLMP No.1949/2022 decided on 16.11.2022.
The relevant part of the order is being reproduced as under:
"The law on this point is not res integra that whenever an
Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of the Police Officer
or upon other information that a dispute which is likely to cause
breach of 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 with regard
to the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. Upon
appearance of the parties, the Executive Magistrate is supposed
to consider the claims of the rival parties in respect of the fact of
actual possession of the subject of dispute. It is the requirement
of law that prior to passing any order of attachment of the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:47:36 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13315] (7 of 9) [CRLR-1521/2024]
property and appointment of a receiver, the Magistrate should
apply his mind as to whether there are emergent circumstances
and eminent danger of breach of peace or not and order of
attachment of property and appointment of a receiver under
Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. can be passed only after conducting a
preliminary inquiry under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. The Executive
Magistrate is not supposed or rather authorized by the law to
adjudicate the right or title of any party over the property in
question. The Executive Magistrate is not empowered to pass
order of taking the possession from one party and deliver it to the
other party or to the receiver, if the question of possession is not
under dispute. There is a distinction between right to have
possession and question of possession. Right to possession can
be decided by a competent Civil/Revenue Court after adjudication
of the issues and pleas of the parties to the lis and then it can
pass a verdict as to which party has a right to have possession
but when it comes to question of possession and the Executive
Magistrate is satisfied that none of the parties were then in such
possession or the Magistrate was unable to satisfy himself as to
which of them was in possession of the subject of dispute and by
placing facts strong apprehension has been shown regarding
breach of peace and tranquility in respect of the conflict of
possession then the Executive Magistrate can very well exercise
power under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and 146(1) Cr.P.C. The Executive
Magistrate is required to record satisfaction of emergent nature of
the case as well as eminent danger of breach of peace or
tranquility before passing an order of attachment."
6. In the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P.
and Ors. reported in (1985) 1 SCC 427, it was held that since
the civil proceedings are already going on in civil Court relating to
the question of possession then continuing a parallel criminal
proceedings is unjustified. The Court emphasized that the civil
court's decree is binding on the criminal court and that multiplicity
of litigation should be avoided.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:47:36 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13315] (8 of 9) [CRLR-1521/2024]
7. In another case of Kanya Bai v. Prahlad passed in S.B. Cr.
Misc. Petition No. 688 of 1997 decided on 10.12.1997 by the
coordinate bench of this Court, Jaipur Bench, it was held that
when a party involved in a property dispute has approached a
competent court in a good faith for the determination of their
rights, and the court is capable of issuing appropriate orders
regarding the security of the property, then initiating criminal
proceedings is not warranted. However, if there is an
apprehension of a breach of public peace between the parties,
necessary action can be taken under Sections 126 and 135 read
with 170 of BNSS.
8. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as
well as the legal principles discussed above, this Court finds that
when a civil suit concerning the title and possession of a disputed
property is already pending before a competent Civil Court,
initiating or continuing parallel proceedings under Section 145 and
146 of CrPC is neither appropriate nor legally justified. Such
parallel proceedings amount to a needless duplication of efforts,
leading to unnecessary expenditure of public time and resources.
The Civil Court, being fully empowered to adjudicate disputes
relating to possession and ownership, can also grant appropriate
interim relief during the pendency of the suit. Moreover, any
decision rendered under Sections 145 and 146 of CrPC remains
subordinate to the outcome of the civil proceedings, as the orders
of the Civil Court are binding upon the criminal courts. Therefore,
in the presence of a pending civil suit, the continuation of
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:47:36 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13315] (9 of 9) [CRLR-1521/2024]
proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of CrPC serves no useful
purpose and lacks any legal foundation. This Court is of the
considered view that until the rights of the parties are conclusively
determined by a competent Civil Court, the property of an
individual cannot be arbitrarily taken or handed over at the
instance of a public servant under the garb of Sections 145 and
146 of CrPC, specially when there is no question of possession
involved and an imminent danger of breach of peace
apprehended.
9. In light of the foregoing discussion, the order dated
18.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Makrana, District Nagaur, is found to be just and proper and is
hereby affirmed. Consequently, the order dated 04.09.2024
passed by the learned SDM, Makrana is quashed and set aside.
10. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.
11. Stay petition and any pending applications stands disposed
of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
8-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:47:36 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
