In a significant ruling on the limits of a Magistrate’s powers during the initial stage of a criminal complaint, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a conditional order directing seizure of a tractor based on disputed ownership.
Justice Himanshu Joshi, while hearing a petition filed by Thakurdas Yadav, made it clear that criminal courts cannot decide questions of property title while directing police investigation.
The order was passed on February 11, 2026, at the Jabalpur Bench.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Allows Single Mother to Change Daughter’s Name, Caste in School Record
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a complaint filed by two respondents before a Magistrate in Tikamgarh under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This provision allows a Magistrate to direct police to register and investigate a case if a cognizable offence - a serious offence where police can act without prior court approval - is disclosed.
According to the complaint, on July 6, 2023, one of the respondents was allegedly pushed off his tractor and robbed of the vehicle. Offences under Sections 392 (robbery) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code were invoked.
While considering the application, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Tikamgarh, passed an order on November 22, 2024. The court directed that if the tractor was found to be within the title and ownership of the complainant, it should be seized and kept at the police station during investigation.
This order was later upheld by the Sessions Court in revision on December 16, 2024.
Read also:- Jharkhand HC Seeks Answers on 437 Custodial Deaths, Orders Home Secretary to Clarify Judicial
Challenging both orders, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - the new criminal procedure law that has replaced the CrPC.
Petitioner’s Stand: Civil Dispute, Not Criminal Adjudication
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Magistrate’s role under Section 156(3) is limited. The court, he said, only needs to see whether the complaint reveals a cognizable offence that requires police investigation.
He contended that the ownership of the tractor is seriously disputed and that a civil suit concerning the same property is already pending before a competent civil court. According to him, the complainant had received sale consideration but failed to transfer the tractor in the petitioner’s name.
“The impugned order amounts to adjudication of civil rights under the garb of criminal proceedings,” the petitioner’s counsel submitted.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents defended the lower court orders. They argued that the direction was merely to secure the property during investigation and did not finally determine ownership.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Cuts Jail Term in ATM Cloning Case, Enhances Fine to ₹2 Lakh Each
Court’s Observations
After hearing all sides, Justice Himanshu Joshi examined the scope of Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175(3) of BNSS).
The Court observed that at this stage, a Magistrate must only determine whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence warranting police investigation.
“The Magistrate does not adjudicate disputed questions of title or civil rights,” the Court noted.
The High Court pointed out that the direction issued by the ACJM - stating that the tractor be seized if it is within the title and ownership of the complainant - necessarily required determination of ownership.
Such a determination, the Court held, goes beyond the limited jurisdiction available at the stage of directing investigation.
Where a civil dispute regarding ownership is already pending before a civil court, the criminal court must exercise restraint, the bench emphasized. Passing such conditional directions may prejudice civil proceedings.
The Court further clarified that the power to seize property during investigation lies with the police under relevant provisions. A Magistrate cannot issue conditional directions that hinge upon deciding title, which is properly the domain of a civil court or trial proceedings.
The revisional court, the High Court said, failed to consider this jurisdictional limitation while affirming the order.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Cuts Jail Term in ATM Cloning Case, Enhances Fine to ₹2 Lakh Each
The Decision
Setting aside the orders of both the ACJM and the Sessions Court to the extent they directed conditional seizure of the tractor, the High Court held that such a direction “cannot be sustained in law.”
However, the Court clarified that the Magistrate remains free to consider the application under Section 156(3) strictly in accordance with law - limited to examining whether a cognizable offence is made out.
It also directed that if investigation is ordered, the investigating agency may exercise its statutory powers independently and without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.
At the same time, the civil court will adjudicate the dispute regarding title and ownership independently, uninfluenced by the criminal proceedings.
The petition was allowed to the extent indicated. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Title: Thakurdas Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case No.: Misc. Criminal Case No. 4481 of 2025
Decision Date: February 11, 2026
