The Patna High Court stated that executive magistrates can only use their authority under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code when there is a fear of disruption to public peace and order.
The Patna High Court stated that before starting proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC, the Executive Magistrate must be satisfied that there is a risk of public peace being disturbed due to a dispute over who actually possesses the property, based on reports or information received. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, which confirmed that Suba Ram had possession of the disputed land and instructed the petitioners not to interfere. Justice Jitendra Kumar emphasized that Executive Magistrates have special authority under Chapter X of the CrPC to prevent disturbances to public peace.
Advocate Ravindra Kumar Singh represented the petitioners, while APP Chandra Sen Prasad Singh represented the respondents. Following a report from the local Police Station, proceedings under Section 144 CrPC were started due to tensions between the two parties over the land. However, these proceedings were later closed, and Section 145 CrPC proceedings began after both sides were heard. Both parties acknowledged that Jita Chamar is the rightful owner of the land. Suba Ram claimed to be the legal heir of Jita Chamar and stated that he is currently in possession of the property.
The second party (petitioners) stated that they obtained the land through the execution of a mortgage decree and were paying land taxes to the Government. After an investigation, the S.D.M. determined that the petitioners were in possession of the disputed land and ordered the first party to stop interfering with their peaceful possession. However, the Sessions Court ruled that the first party, Suba Ram, was actually in possession of the property. Upset by this decision, the petitioners went to the High Court.
The Bench referred to Sections 145 to 148 of the Cr.PC, explaining that these laws are designed to maintain public order by allowing the Executive Magistrate to take action if there is a risk of public disturbance due to disputes over who possesses the land or water. The inquiry under Section 145 Cr.PC focuses solely on who was in actual possession at the time of the report, regardless of ownership rights. The Bench also noted that for proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC to begin, the Executive Magistrate must be satisfied that there is a risk of public disturbance due to the possession dispute, based on the information received. This satisfaction must align with the grounds stated in the preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.PC.
The Court clarified that only disputes about actual possession that threaten public peace fall under the Executive Magistrate’s authority as outlined in Chapter X of the CrPC. In this case, the Bench observed that the Executive Magistrate did not indicate in his initial order that the possession dispute could disrupt public peace, nor did he provide any reasons for such concerns. The Bench stated, “For proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC to begin, the Executive Magistrate must be satisfied that there is a risk of public peace being disturbed due to a possession dispute, based on reports or information received. This satisfaction must be reflected in the preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.PC.”
In this instance, the preliminary order did not mention any dispute, nor did it show that the Executive Magistrate was concerned about public peace being at risk. The Bench pointed out that this was a private civil matter that should be resolved in a Civil Court. They noted that the Executive Magistrate should have directed the parties to seek resolution in the Civil Court instead of starting proceedings under Section 145 CrPC. The Bench deemed this an improper use of power that intruded on the Civil Court’s jurisdiction. Consequently, they dismissed the criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC and allowed the parties to approach the Civil Court to settle their rights.
Cause Title: Nand Jee Singh & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Case No.: CR. REV. No.391 of 2019)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Ravindra Kumar Singh
Respondents: APP Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, Advocate Udit Narayan Singh
