Raj HC quashes land attachment under Sections 145–146 CrPC, holds no material showing imminent breach of peace

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be initiated mechanically and that attachment of immovable property is permissible only where there exists cogent material demonstrating imminent danger of breach of peace or an emergency situation. The Court held that in the absence of such material, invocation of preventive jurisdiction amounts to misuse of power and abuse of the process of law.

Justice Farjand Ali recorded that Sections 145 and 146 CrPC constitute a preventive mechanism intended solely to maintain public order and tranquillity, and not to adjudicate civil rights relating to possession, title or ownership. The Court reiterated that attachment of property and appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary step which can be taken only when the Magistrate is unable to ascertain possession or when an emergency, supported by material on record, is clearly made out.

These observations were made while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Ramuram, assailing the order dated June 18, 2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nokha, District Bikaner, whereby land in dispute was attached under Section 146(1) CrPC and the Station House Officer was appointed as receiver. The said attachment order had earlier been set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nokha, on July 4, 2025, giving rise to the present revision.

The case arose from a complaint submitted by the SHO, Police Station Panchu, under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alleging rival claims over agricultural land and apprehension of breach of peace. On the basis of the said complaint, the SDM passed an order on June 18, 2025 directing attachment of the land on the same day and appointing a receiver, purportedly on the ground of emergency.

The High Court, upon examination of the original record, recorded that the complaint relied upon by the SDM was dated May 28, 2025 and that there was no endorsement of its receipt by the court, nor any order-sheet reflecting that the complaint had been taken on file. The Court further noted that no notice was issued to the parties and no intervening material was placed on record between May 28, 2025 and June 18, 2025 to justify sudden invocation of emergency powers.

The Court recorded that the record did not disclose any incident of violence, bloodshed, assembly of rival parties at the spot, or any law and order situation warranting preventive attachment. It was noted that the SDM proceeded on conjectures and suppositions, without recording reasons demonstrating imminent danger to public peace, as required by law.

Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand, the High Court reiterated that mere apprehension of breach of peace is not sufficient to invoke Section 146 CrPC and that a clear distinction must be maintained between an emergency situation and a routine land dispute. The Court held that when reports themselves indicate possession of one party, attachment cannot be ordered merely to avoid a potential dispute.

The High Court further found that the revisional court had committed an error in observing that no complaint by the SHO existed, despite the document forming part of the record. The Court held that absence of endorsement or procedural lapses could not justify a finding that the complaint never existed, and that such observations reflected non-application of mind.

The Court concluded that the SDM had exercised powers under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC in a manner not contemplated by law and that the entire proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities and lack of material showing breach of peace or emergency. The High Court also exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction and quashed the foundational proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, holding that their continuation would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition was allowed. The orders dated June 18, 2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nokha, and July 4, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nokha, District Bikaner, were quashed and set aside. The Court clarified that the parties were at liberty to pursue their civil remedies before the competent civil or revenue court, and that in the event of any future apprehension of breach of peace, appropriate proceedings could be initiated under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC in accordance with law.

Case Title
Ramuram s/o Thana Ram vs State of Rajasthan & Others

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 904/2025

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Farjand Ali

Date of Order
February 3, 2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. M.S. Purohit
For the respondents: Mr. Vimal Prakash Chhangani, Mr. Suresh Bishnoi, Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Deputy Government Advocate