Brijesh Soni and others v. State of U.P. and other), under Section

8. "In view of above respective submissions made by both the parties the merit of application has to be seen. The provisions reatling to show cause and attachment are incorporated in Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. which runs as under: "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 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."

146. Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint receiver. (1) if the magistrate at any time after making the order under subsection(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." Now the point for determination is propriety of impugned order passed by SubDivisional Magistrate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of Uttrakhand 2013 (80) ACC 599 (SC) has held as under:

12. The above order would indicate that the SDM has, in our view, wrongly invoked the powers under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. under Section 146(1), a Magistrate can pass an order of attachment of the subject of dispute if it be a case of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was in such possession, or he cannot decide as to which of them was in possession. Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace and Section 146 cannot be separated from Section 145 Cr.P.C. It can only be read in the context of Section 145 Cr.P.C. If after the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate is of the opinion that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject of dispute at the time of the order passed under Section 145(1) or is unable to decide which of the parties was in such possession, he may attach the subject of dispute, until a competent court has determined the right of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof.

13. The ingredients necessary for passing an order under Section 145 (1) of the Code would not automatically attract for the attachment of the property. Under Section 146, a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists before he passes an order of attachment. A case of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 of the Code, has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of the peace. The Magistrate, before passing an order under Section 146, must explain the circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency. In other words, to infer a situation of emergency, there must be a material on record before Magistrate when the submission of the parties filed, documents produced or evidence adduced.

14. We find from this case there is nothing to show that an emergency exists so as to invoke Section 146(1) and to attach the property in question. A case of emergency, as per Section 146 of the Code has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of peace. When the reports indicate that one of the parties is in possession, rightly or wrongly, the Magistrate cannot pass an order of attachment on the ground of emergency. The order acknowledges the fact that Ashok Kumar has started construction in the property in question, therefore, possession of property is with the appellant Ashok Kumar, whether it is legal or not, is not for the SDM to decide." उपरकक तथयय कब दनषगत ननमन आदबश पवररत नकयव जवतव हह:- आदबश अतत द०प०सन० कक धवरव 146 (1) कब तहत पदत अधधकवरय कव पयकग करतब हहए गवम अबदतलवपतर शहजवदपतर थवनव ककतववलस अकबरपतर जनपद अमबबडकरनगर मम मसथत मकवन पर सववनमतव समबनधस नवववद हकनब कब कवरर ततकवल पभवव सब कत कर नकयव जवतव हह तथव थवनवधयक अकबरपतर कक ननदरनशत नकयव जवतव हह नक कत कर शतदव मकवन कक नकसस ननषपक वयनक कब पक कब सतपतदरगस मम दबकर उसब सतपतदरगवर ननयतक करतब हहए सतपतदरगसनवमव एवन अनय अनभलबख नयवयवलय कब समक पसततत करम। अनतपवलन हबतत आदबश कक एक पनत थवनवधयक अकबरपतर कक भबजस जवय। पतववलस ववसतब सवकय नदनवनक 27.01.2023 कक पबश हक।"

4. Vide impugned order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 63/2024 (Brijesh Soni and others vs. State of U.P. and others), under Section 397 Cr.P.C., which was filed challenging the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the Magistrate, the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (in short "Revisional Court") dismissed the said revision. The relevant portion of the order dated 11.12.2024 reads as under:- पतववलस पर उपलबध ससचस 21 "19. ब कब मवधयम सब दवधखल मसलववद सनखयव 83/2018 सतनसल कत मवर आनद बनवम नवदनव खवतसन आनद कक पमवनरत पनतधलनप कब अवलककन सब पकट हकतव हह नक पतनरसकरकतवर दवरव उक मसलववद सथवई ननषबधवजव कब अनततकष हबतत सकम नयवयवलय कब समक जक समबमनधत नयवयवलय दवरव ननरसत कर नदयव, सनमसथत नकयव गयव थव, धजसकब ववजदवयर हबतत स०प०सन० 03/2023 सतनसल कत मवर आनद बनवम नवदरव खवतसन आनद लममबत हह, धजसकक पतनष पतववलस पर उपलबध कवगज सनख 21 ब पशनकतर सब हकतस हह। इस पकवर यह पकट हकतव हह नक पकय कब मधय दसववनस ववद लममबत हह। ऐसस मसथनत मम नबनव सवकय आयब नकसस भस पक कव सववनमतव ननधवरररत नकयव जवनव समभववय नहह हह। नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय दवरव उभय पक कक सवकय पसततत नकयब जवनब हबतत नदनवनक 27.01. 2023 ऐसस मसथनत मम उभय पक कक ननयत नतधथ कक नवचवरर नयवयवलय कब समक उपमसथत हककर अपनव- अपनव सवकय पसततत करनव चवनहए थव, लबनकन उनकब दवरव नवचवरर नयवयवलय कब समक उपमसथत हककर ककई सवकय नहह पसततत नकयव गयव। यह भस उलबख नकयव जवनव समसचसन हकगव नक नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय दवरव नकसस भस पक कव सववनमतव व कबजव ननधवरररत नहह नकयव गयव हह, बमलक नवववनदत समपधत कक सनरनकत रखनब कब आशय सब उसब कत कर कर नकसस ननषपक वयनक कक सतपतदरगस मम नदयब जवनब कव आदबश पवररत नकयव गयव हह। मवननसय उचचतम नयवयवलय एवन मवननसय उचच नयवयवलय, पटनव दवरव उपरकक पकररय मम पनतपवनदत नवधधक धसदवनत कब अनतसवर धवरव 146 (1) दन०प०सन० कब अनतगरत कत कर आदबश पवररत करतब समय नवपकस कक नकनटस नदयव जवनव आवशयक नहह हह और कक दनषगत रखतब हहए एक पकसय रप सब धवरव 146 नवचवरर नयवयवलय मवमलब कक Emergency कक नतधथ ननयत कक गयस हह, दन०प०सन० कब अनतगरत नवववनदत समपधत कक कत कर (1) नकयब जवनब कक कवयरववहस समपवनदत कर सकतव हह। इस पकवर नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय दवरव पवररत आकबनपत आदबश मम नकसस पकवर कक अननयनमततव पररलमचचत नहह हकतस हह। यह भस उलबख नकयव जवनव समसचसन हह नक पसततत पकरर मम अभस पकय कक नवववनदत मकवन कब समबनध मम अपनब- अपनब सवकय पसततत करनब कव पयवरप अवसर पवप हह। इस पकवर उपरकक नवशलबषरकपरवनत मम यह पवतव हह

20. न नक नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय नब सवयन मम नननहत कबतवधधकवर कव समयकत ढनग सब पयकग करतब हहए पतववलस पर उपलबध तथय एवन सवकय कब आलकक मम नवधध सममत एवन औनचतयपसरर आकबनपत आदबश कक पवररत नकयव हह, धजसमम नकसस पकवर कक अननयनमततव नहह हह, धजसमम नकसस पकवर कब हसतकबप कक आवशयकतव नहह हह। तदनतसवर पसततत दवमणडक पतनरसकर यवनचकव बलहसन हह और ननरसत हकनब यकगय हह। आदबश पसततत दवमणडक पतनरसकर यवनचकव, नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय दवरव ववद सनखयव 502/2023 बबजबश सकनस अनतगरत धवरव 146 (1) 13.01.2023 पतष नकयव जवतव हह। उपरकक नवशलबषरवनतसवर ननरसत कक जवतस हह। तदनतसवर अबदतल कलवम अनसवर उरर आजवद बनवम दन०प०सन० मम पवररत आकबनपत आदबश नदनवननकत पसततत मवमलब कक तथय एवन पररमसथनतयय मम नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय कक ननदरनशत नकयव जवतव हह नक वह पकरर कव ननसतवरर शसघवनतशसघ करनव सतननमशचत करब। समबमनधत दणडववद धलनपक कक आदबनशत नकयव जवतव हह नक वह नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय कक पतववलस, इस आदबश कक एक पनत कब सवथ नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय कक पबनषत नकयव जवनव सतननमशचत करब। पककवरय कक आदबनशत नकयव जवतव हह 22.12.2024 कक उपमसथत रहम और मवमलब कक कवयरववहस मम सहयकग हबतत ततपर रहम।" नक वब नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय कब समक नदनवनक

5. The order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the Magistrate and also the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Revisional Court have been challenged on the ground that a civil suit is pending between the parties.

6. Learned AGA opposed the present application.

7. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

8. Upon due consideration of the facts of the case, as appears from the record, this Court finds no force in the instant application. It is for the following facts/reasons:- (i) Regular Suit No. 83/2018 (Sunil Kumar and others vs. Nadra Khatoon and others), seeking decree of permanent injunction, in relation to the property in dispute, was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.11.2022. Thus, civil suit was not pending at the time of exercising the power under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. (ii) The private opposite party(s) preferred an application dated 05.12.2022 before the Magistrate, whereupon, the police officer concerned submitted its report dated 09.01.2023 and based upon the said report dated 09.01.2023, the Magistrate proceeded under Section(s) 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. and passed the order dated 13.01.2023, impugned herein. (iii) Prior to passing the impugned order dated 13.01.2023, on account of altercation between the parties, in relation to the property in issue, the administration proceeded against the parties under Sections 107/116 and 151 Cr.P.C.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the instant application is dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 17.1.2025/Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

8. "In view of above respective submissions made by both the parties the merit of application has to be seen. The provisions reatling to show cause and attachment are incorporated in Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. which runs as under: "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 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."

146. Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint receiver. (1) if the magistrate at any time after making the order under subsection(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." Now the point for determination is propriety of impugned order passed by SubDivisional Magistrate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of Uttrakhand 2013 (80) ACC 599 (SC) has held as under:

12. The above order would indicate that the SDM has, in our view, wrongly invoked the powers under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. under Section 146(1), a Magistrate can pass an order of attachment of the subject of dispute if it be a case of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was in such possession, or he cannot decide as to which of them was in possession. Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace and Section 146 cannot be separated from Section 145 Cr.P.C. It can only be read in the context of Section 145 Cr.P.C. If after the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate is of the opinion that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject of dispute at the time of the order passed under Section 145(1) or is unable to decide which of the parties was in such possession, he may attach the subject of dispute, until a competent court has determined the right of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof.

13. The ingredients necessary for passing an order under Section 145 (1) of the Code would not automatically attract for the attachment of the property. Under Section 146, a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists before he passes an order of attachment. A case of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 of the Code, has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of the peace. The Magistrate, before passing an order under Section 146, must explain the circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency. In other words, to infer a situation of emergency, there must be a material on record before Magistrate when the submission of the parties filed, documents produced or evidence adduced.

14. We find from this case there is nothing to show that an emergency exists so as to invoke Section 146(1) and to attach the property in question. A case of emergency, as per Section 146 of the Code has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of peace. When the reports indicate that one of the parties is in possession, rightly or wrongly, the Magistrate cannot pass an order of attachment on the ground of emergency. The order acknowledges the fact that Ashok Kumar has started construction in the property in question, therefore, possession of property is with the appellant Ashok Kumar, whether it is legal or not, is not for the SDM to decide." उपरकक तथयय कब दनषगत ननमन आदबश पवररत नकयव जवतव हह:- आदबश अतत द०प०सन० कक धवरव 146 (1) कब तहत पदत अधधकवरय कव पयकग करतब हहए गवम अबदतलवपतर शहजवदपतर थवनव ककतववलस अकबरपतर जनपद अमबबडकरनगर मम मसथत मकवन पर सववनमतव समबनधस नवववद हकनब कब कवरर ततकवल पभवव सब कत कर नकयव जवतव हह तथव थवनवधयक अकबरपतर कक ननदरनशत नकयव जवतव हह नक कत कर शतदव मकवन कक नकसस ननषपक वयनक कब पक कब सतपतदरगस मम दबकर उसब सतपतदरगवर ननयतक करतब हहए सतपतदरगसनवमव एवन अनय अनभलबख नयवयवलय कब समक पसततत करम। अनतपवलन हबतत आदबश कक एक पनत थवनवधयक अकबरपतर कक भबजस जवय। पतववलस ववसतब सवकय नदनवनक 27.01.2023 कक पबश हक।"

4. Vide impugned order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 63/2024 (Brijesh Soni and others vs. State of U.P. and others), under Section 397 Cr.P.C., which was filed challenging the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the Magistrate, the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (in short "Revisional Court") dismissed the said revision. The relevant portion of the order dated 11.12.2024 reads as under:- पतववलस पर उपलबध ससचस 21 "19. ब कब मवधयम सब दवधखल मसलववद सनखयव 83/2018 सतनसल कत मवर आनद बनवम नवदनव खवतसन आनद कक पमवनरत पनतधलनप कब अवलककन सब पकट हकतव हह नक पतनरसकरकतवर दवरव उक मसलववद सथवई ननषबधवजव कब अनततकष हबतत सकम नयवयवलय कब समक जक समबमनधत नयवयवलय दवरव ननरसत कर नदयव, सनमसथत नकयव गयव थव, धजसकब ववजदवयर हबतत स०प०सन० 03/2023 सतनसल कत मवर आनद बनवम नवदरव खवतसन आनद लममबत हह, धजसकक पतनष पतववलस पर उपलबध कवगज सनख 21 ब पशनकतर सब हकतस हह। इस पकवर यह पकट हकतव हह नक पकय कब मधय दसववनस ववद लममबत हह। ऐसस मसथनत मम नबनव सवकय आयब नकसस भस पक कव सववनमतव ननधवरररत नकयव जवनव समभववय नहह हह। नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय दवरव उभय पक कक सवकय पसततत नकयब जवनब हबतत नदनवनक 27.01. 2023 ऐसस मसथनत मम उभय पक कक ननयत नतधथ कक नवचवरर नयवयवलय कब समक उपमसथत हककर अपनव- अपनव सवकय पसततत करनव चवनहए थव, लबनकन उनकब दवरव नवचवरर नयवयवलय कब समक उपमसथत हककर ककई सवकय नहह पसततत नकयव गयव। यह भस उलबख नकयव जवनव समसचसन हकगव नक नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय दवरव नकसस भस पक कव सववनमतव व कबजव ननधवरररत नहह नकयव गयव हह, बमलक नवववनदत समपधत कक सनरनकत रखनब कब आशय सब उसब कत कर कर नकसस ननषपक वयनक कक सतपतदरगस मम नदयब जवनब कव आदबश पवररत नकयव गयव हह। मवननसय उचचतम नयवयवलय एवन मवननसय उचच नयवयवलय, पटनव दवरव उपरकक पकररय मम पनतपवनदत नवधधक धसदवनत कब अनतसवर धवरव 146 (1) दन०प०सन० कब अनतगरत कत कर आदबश पवररत करतब समय नवपकस कक नकनटस नदयव जवनव आवशयक नहह हह और कक दनषगत रखतब हहए एक पकसय रप सब धवरव 146 नवचवरर नयवयवलय मवमलब कक Emergency कक नतधथ ननयत कक गयस हह, दन०प०सन० कब अनतगरत नवववनदत समपधत कक कत कर (1) नकयब जवनब कक कवयरववहस समपवनदत कर सकतव हह। इस पकवर नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय दवरव पवररत आकबनपत आदबश मम नकसस पकवर कक अननयनमततव पररलमचचत नहह हकतस हह। यह भस उलबख नकयव जवनव समसचसन हह नक पसततत पकरर मम अभस पकय कक नवववनदत मकवन कब समबनध मम अपनब- अपनब सवकय पसततत करनब कव पयवरप अवसर पवप हह। इस पकवर उपरकक नवशलबषरकपरवनत मम यह पवतव हह

20. न नक नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय नब सवयन मम नननहत कबतवधधकवर कव समयकत ढनग सब पयकग करतब हहए पतववलस पर उपलबध तथय एवन सवकय कब आलकक मम नवधध सममत एवन औनचतयपसरर आकबनपत आदबश कक पवररत नकयव हह, धजसमम नकसस पकवर कक अननयनमततव नहह हह, धजसमम नकसस पकवर कब हसतकबप कक आवशयकतव नहह हह। तदनतसवर पसततत दवमणडक पतनरसकर यवनचकव बलहसन हह और ननरसत हकनब यकगय हह। आदबश पसततत दवमणडक पतनरसकर यवनचकव, नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय दवरव ववद सनखयव 502/2023 बबजबश सकनस अनतगरत धवरव 146 (1) 13.01.2023 पतष नकयव जवतव हह। उपरकक नवशलबषरवनतसवर ननरसत कक जवतस हह। तदनतसवर अबदतल कलवम अनसवर उरर आजवद बनवम दन०प०सन० मम पवररत आकबनपत आदबश नदनवननकत पसततत मवमलब कक तथय एवन पररमसथनतयय मम नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय कक ननदरनशत नकयव जवतव हह नक वह पकरर कव ननसतवरर शसघवनतशसघ करनव सतननमशचत करब। समबमनधत दणडववद धलनपक कक आदबनशत नकयव जवतव हह नक वह नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय कक पतववलस, इस आदबश कक एक पनत कब सवथ नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय कक पबनषत नकयव जवनव सतननमशचत करब। पककवरय कक आदबनशत नकयव जवतव हह 22.12.2024 कक उपमसथत रहम और मवमलब कक कवयरववहस मम सहयकग हबतत ततपर रहम।" नक वब नवदवन नवचवरर नयवयवलय कब समक नदनवनक

5. The order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the Magistrate and also the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Revisional Court have been challenged on the ground that a civil suit is pending between the parties.

6. Learned AGA opposed the present application.

7. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

8. Upon due consideration of the facts of the case, as appears from the record, this Court finds no force in the instant application. It is for the following facts/reasons:- (i) Regular Suit No. 83/2018 (Sunil Kumar and others vs. Nadra Khatoon and others), seeking decree of permanent injunction, in relation to the property in dispute, was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.11.2022. Thus, civil suit was not pending at the time of exercising the power under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. (ii) The private opposite party(s) preferred an application dated 05.12.2022 before the Magistrate, whereupon, the police officer concerned submitted its report dated 09.01.2023 and based upon the said report dated 09.01.2023, the Magistrate proceeded under Section(s) 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. and passed the order dated 13.01.2023, impugned herein. (iii) Prior to passing the impugned order dated 13.01.2023, on account of altercation between the parties, in relation to the property in issue, the administration proceeded against the parties under Sections 107/116 and 151 Cr.P.C.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the instant application is dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 17.1.2025/Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench