The Patna High Court held that the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC is the satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate regarding the apprehension of breach of public peace on account of a dispute relating to actual possession of the subject property, as per report or information received by the Magistrate.

The revision petition before the High Court was preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge confirming the possession of first party Suba Ram over the disputed land and directing the second party petitioners not to interfere in the possession of the first party over the land in question.

Considering the fact that public order and peace affect the public at large, the Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar asserted, “Extraordinary jurisdiction under Chapter X of the Cr. P.C. has been provided to Executive Magistrates to maintain public peace and tranquillity by nipping such breach in the bud.”

Advocate Ravindra Kumar Singh represented the Petitioners while APP Chandra Sen Prasad Singh represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

In view of the report of the Officer-in-charge of the local Police Station, proceedings under Section 144 CrPC were initiated. As per the report, there was tension prevailing between the two parties on account of a land dispute. However, subsequently, the proceeding under Section 144 CrPC was closed and the proceeding under Section 145 CrPC was initiated after hearing both parties. Both the parties admitted that the khatiyani raiyat of the land in question is Jita Chamar. The first party Suba Ram claimed that he is the legal heir/successor of said Jita Chamar. He was also claiming that he is in possession of the property in question.

The second party (petitioners) claimed that they got the land in execution of the mortgage decree and were also paying land revenue to the Government. After inquiry, the S.D.M. concluded that the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute and the first party was restrained from creating disturbance in the peaceful possession of the second party. However, the Sessions Court held that it was the first party Suba Ram who was in possession of the property in question. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to Sections 145 to 148 Cr.PC, the Bench explained that the statutory provisions therein are meant to maintain public order and peace by empowering the Executive Magistrate to take preventive measures in case of apprehension of breach of public peace on account of dispute as to actual possession of the land or water. “Hence, the inquiry under Section 145 Cr.PC is limited to the question as to who was in the actual possession on the date of the report or information, irrespective of the title to the property and right to possess the same”, it said.

The Bench further added, “It also emerges from the statutory provisions that the condition precedent for initiating proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC is the satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate regarding apprehension of breach of public peace on account of dispute relating to the actual possession of the subject property, as per report or information received by the Executive Magistrate. Such satisfaction must be based on ground mentioned in the preliminary order made under Section 145(1) Cr.PC.”

The Court made it clear that only dispute regarding actual possession of the parties giving rise to an apprehension of public peace and tranquillity comes under the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate under Chapter X of CrPC. Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Executive Magistrate had not mentioned in his preliminary order that on account of the dispute regarding possession, public peace was likely to be breached, let alone mentioning any ground for such apprehension. “It has been also held that the condition precedent for initiating proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC is satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate regarding apprehension of breach of public peace on account of dispute relating to the actual possession of the subject property, as per report or information received by the Executive Magistrate. Such satisfaction must be based on ground mentioned in the preliminary order made under Section 145(1) Cr.PC”, the Bench mentioned.

However, in the case on hand, no such dispute was mentioned in the preliminary order, nor any satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate was referred to regarding apprehension of breach of public peace. Noting that the present matter was a case of a private civil dispute which could be adjudicated only in the Civil Court, the Bench stated that the Executive Magistrate instead of initiating the proceeding under Section 145 CrPC should have advised the parties to move Civil Court for adjudication of their rights.

As per the Bench, it was a colourable exercise of power encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Thus, quashing the criminal proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC, the Bench granted liberty to the parties to move the Civil Court for adjudication of their rights.

Cause Title: Nand Jee Singh & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Case No.: CR. REV. No.391 of 2019)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate Ravindra Kumar Singh

Respondents: APP Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, Advocate Udit Narayan Singh

Click here to read/download Order


Justice Jitendra Kumar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.