The Gauhati High Court has ruled that proceedings under Sections 144, 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot continue where there is no genuine dispute over who is in possession of the property. Holding that the essential requirement for invoking Section 145 was missing, the Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the Executive Magistrate in a land dispute.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after one party approached the Additional District Magistrate, Hailakandi, claiming ownership of a piece of land through inheritance. According to the complaint, shops and other structures had been built on the property, and a dispute later emerged regarding possession and payment of rent. It was also alleged that the situation could disturb public peace.
Based on a police report referring to the ongoing land dispute, the Additional District Magistrate attached the disputed property under Section 146 CrPC while proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 were pending. The order was later challenged before the High Court.
Court's Observation
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma examined whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 145 CrPC.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court noted that the complaint itself acknowledged that the petitioner was already in possession of the disputed land. Since possession was not genuinely in dispute, the very purpose of Section 145 which is to determine actual possession in cases likely to lead to a breach of peace did not arise.
The bench observed,
"The fact that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land must be regarded as an admitted fact... Hence, there is no bona fide dispute as regards the factum of possession of the disputed land."
The Court explained that Section 145 empowers an Executive Magistrate to determine which party was in actual possession of the property at the relevant time. However, where that fact is already admitted, there is no issue requiring such determination.
The bench further observed,
"The vital condition requisite for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC was lacking and thus, the proceedings impugned must be held to be without jurisdiction."
It also held that permitting the proceedings to continue in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Decision
Allowing the criminal petition, the Gauhati High Court quashed the proceedings pending before the Additional District Magistrate under Sections 144, 145 and 146 CrPC.
The Court concluded that, since there was no bona fide dispute regarding actual possession of the land, the statutory conditions for invoking Section 145 were absent, making the proceedings legally unsustainable.
Case Details
Case Title: Zahirul Haque Laskar v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Case Number: Crl. Pet. No. 1292/2023
Judge: Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Decision Date: 26 June 2026
