No imminent breach of peace, civil suit already pending — Section 145 CrPC proceedings cannot continue: Raj HC

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed the quashing of an SDM’s attachment and receiver order passed under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC, holding that such proceedings require cogent and reliable material showing an imminent danger of breach of peace, and that running them in parallel with a pending civil suit over the same property is neither appropriate nor legally justified. The order was passed by Justice Farjand Ali at the Jodhpur Principal Seat on 24 March 2026, while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by Rajpal Singh challenging the Additional Sessions Judge’s order that had set aside the SDM’s attachment.

Background

The petitioner, Rajpal Singh, filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1521 of 2024 assailing an order dated 18 November 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Makrana, District Nagaur. The dispute concerned agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 81 and 81/1 at village Besaroli. The petitioner alleged that his father Pannaram had executed a gift deed in favour of the private respondents to deprive him of his lawful share, and that the respondents were attempting to forcibly dispossess him and damage crops, creating an apprehension of breach of peace. The SDM, Makrana had, by order dated 4 September 2024, directed attachment of the disputed property and appointed a receiver. The respondents challenged this before the ASJ, who by order dated 18 November 2024 allowed their revision and set aside the SDM’s attachment order. The petitioner then approached the High Court to restore the SDM’s order.

Notably, the Court recorded that a civil suit seeking cancellation of the transfer executed in favour of the respondents had been filed and its appeal was pending before the High Court, an order dated 28 October 2021 of this Court restraining further alienation of the property was in place, and the petitioner himself had instituted proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Makrana seeking partition, declaration and permanent injunction — proceedings in which, as the Court noted, the petitioner had “acknowledged joint possession of the disputed land with the respondents.”

The Law on Sections 145 and 146 CrPC

Justice Farjand Ali discussed at length the legal requirements for invoking Sections 145 and 146 CrPC. The Court laid down:

“before initiating a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. or moving an application under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C., circumstances 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 Court further observed, drawing from its earlier decision in Ashoknath Chela Kevalnath v. State of Rajasthan (SBCRLMP No. 1949/2022, decided 16.11.2022):

“prior to passing any order of attachment of the 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) CrP.C. can be passed only after conducting a preliminary inquiry under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C.”

On Parallel Proceedings When a Civil Suit is Pending

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1985) 1 SCC 427, which 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” and that “the civil court’s decree is binding on the criminal court and that multiplicity of litigation should be avoided.”

The Court additionally drew from a coordinate bench decision in Kanya Bai v. Prahlad (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 688 of 1997, decided 10.12.1997) which 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.”

Summing up the legal position, the Court stated in paragraph 8 of its order:

“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.”

The Court concluded: “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.”

The Order

Justice Farjand Ali found the order of the ASJ dated 18 November 2024 to be “just and proper” and affirmed it. The SDM’s order dated 4 September 2024 directing attachment and appointment of a receiver was quashed and set aside. The revision petition filed by Rajpal Singh before the High Court was dismissed.

Case Details