The Rajasthan High Court has once again emphasized that for initiating proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), there must be concrete and reliable material proving an imminent threat to public peace. The court reiterated that vague assertions cannot justify invoking these provisions.
Section 145 CrPC outlines the procedure to be followed in cases where a dispute concerning land or water may lead to a breach of peace. Section 146 CrPC grants power to the Magistrate to attach the disputed property and appoint a receiver in urgent situations where ownership or possession is unclear, or there is an immediate risk to public tranquility.
Court’s Ruling on Section 145 and 146 CrPC
Justice Farjand Ali, while referring to these provisions, observed:
"Before initiating a proceeding under Section 145 CrPC or moving an application under Section 146(1) CrPC, circumstances suggesting imminent danger of breach of peace must be demonstrated with cogent and reliable material. A mere vague assertion will not suffice."
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Clarifies: 45-Day Recommendation Rule Does Not Reduce 6-Month Validity of Waiting List
The court stressed that before invoking Sections 145 and 146 CrPC, there must be a serious question of possession and a scenario where it is unclear which party holds possession at the relevant time. Additionally, there must be a strong likelihood that parties might attempt to take forcible possession of the immovable property, leading to public unrest.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a dispute in Guda-Kallan, Rajasthan, where the petitioner, representing local villagers, alleged that certain individuals had illegally occupied a public land and were unlawfully constructing on it. The Station House Officer (SHO) initiated proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Sojat. The SDM ordered the attachment of the disputed land and appointed the SHO as a receiver.
Read Also:- Rajasthan HC Orders Appointment of 90% Hearing-Impaired Candidate Wrongly Excluded from PwD Category
However, the private respondents challenged this decision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, through a revision petition. The trial court allowed the revision, ruling that the dispute had been ongoing for 43 years and was already under civil litigation. Therefore, criminal court intervention was unwarranted. This order was subsequently challenged before the High Court.
Judicial Analysis
The High Court noted that the revisional judge had correctly applied legal precedents established by the Supreme Court. These precedents indicate that when a dispute falls under the jurisdiction of civil courts, criminal courts should refrain from interfering unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Halts Demolition of Properties Linked to Beawar Sexual Exploitation Case
The court referred to the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court ruled that:
"If civil proceedings are already in progress, parallel criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC should not continue. The decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court, and multiplicity of litigation should be avoided."
Further, in the case of Kanya Bai v. Prahlad, the Rajasthan High Court had ruled that when a party has approached a competent court for determination of property rights, criminal proceedings under Section 145 CrPC should not be initiated unless there is a significant threat to public peace.
In this background, the Trial Court order was upheld and the petition filed was dismissed.
Case Title: Shyam Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
