Case Background
The dispute began in the village area of Siwan district over a piece of land whose khatiyani raiyat was admitted by both sides to be one Jita Chamar.
On 15.10.1988, the Officer-in-Charge of the local police station sent a report stating that there was tension between two parties due to this land dispute. Based on this report, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was started to prevent immediate breach of peace.
Later, on 31.12.1988, the Section 144 CrPC proceeding was closed. On the same date, after hearing both sides, the Executive Magistrate initiated a proceeding under Section 145 CrPC by passing a preliminary order.
In this preliminary order, the Magistrate recorded that both parties accepted that the khatiyani raiyat was Jita Chamar. The first party, represented by Suba Ram, claimed to be his legal heir and claimed to be in possession, stating that houses were built on some portion of the land. The second party, who later became the petitioners before the High Court, claimed that they had obtained the land through execution of a mortgage decree and were paying land revenue to the Government.
Since the Executive Magistrate felt he could not decide who was in actual possession without inquiry, he proceeded under Section 145 CrPC.
Both sides filed written statements and examined witnesses before the Executive Magistrate. After inquiry, on 16.11.2000, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) held that the second party (present petitioners) were in possession of the disputed land. He restrained the first party (legal heirs of Suba Ram) from disturbing their peaceful possession until any contrary order by a competent civil court.
The first party, through Suba Ram, challenged this order by filing Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2001 before the Sessions Court. On 26.08.2011, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge set aside the Executive Magistrate’s order dated 16.11.2000.
The present petitioners then moved the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1121 of 2012. The High Court set aside the Sessions Court’s order dated 26.08.2011 and remanded the matter to the Sessions Court for fresh decision in accordance with law.
After remand, the Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Siwan again allowed the criminal revision by order dated 30.11.2018. This time, the Sessions Court set aside the Executive Magistrate’s order dated 16.11.2000 and held that the first party, Suba Ram, was in possession of the disputed property. The legal heirs of Suba Ram (O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 before the High Court) were thus treated as being in possession.
Aggrieved by this order dated 30.11.2018, the second party before the Magistrate approached the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 391 of 2019. That revision has now been decided by the present judgment dated 20.02.2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar first heard the submissions of the petitioners, the State, and the opposite party nos. 2 to 5.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the Sessions Court’s order in favour of the first party was legally unsustainable. According to them, they had obtained the property in execution of a decree and were paying land revenue. They claimed both title and possession. They also argued that the very initiation of the Section 145 CrPC proceeding was not maintainable because there was, in fact, no apprehension of breach of public peace. The dispute, they said, was purely about title and possession between private parties.
On the other side, the learned APP and counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 5 supported the impugned Sessions Court order. They submitted that the opposite parties were the legal heirs of the first party, Suba Ram, who was legal heir of khatiyani raiyat Jita Chamar, and that they were in possession of the property with houses constructed on some part of the land. They contended that there was no illegality or infirmity in the Sessions Court’s order.
To resolve the matter, the Patna High Court focused on the scope and limits of Section 145 CrPC. The Court reproduced the full text of Section 145 CrPC, which deals with disputes concerning land or water likely to cause breach of the peace.
The Court explained that Chapter X of the CrPC, in which Section 145 appears, is about “maintenance of public order and tranquility”. Sections 145 to 148 CrPC specifically address disputes relating to immovable property.
From a reading of these provisions, the Court held that the purpose of Section 145 is preventive, not to decide title. It is meant to allow the Executive Magistrate to take quick steps where there is a dispute over actual possession of land or water and that dispute is likely to cause breach of public peace.
The Court stressed some key points from Section 145:
- The Executive Magistrate must be “satisfied” from a police report or other information that a dispute “likely to cause a breach of the peace” exists.
- The Magistrate must state in writing the grounds of being so satisfied in the preliminary order.
- The inquiry is only about who was in actual possession when the preliminary order was made, or who was forcibly dispossessed shortly before.
- The Magistrate cannot decide or examine ownership or title. Those questions are strictly for the civil courts.
The Court also noted that the concept of “public peace and tranquility” is much wider than mere tension between a few individuals. If the dispute affects only the private interests of the parties regarding land, it may not amount to a threat to public order. Such purely private disputes fall in the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts.
The judgment emphasised that Executive Magistrates should invoke Section 145 CrPC only when there is genuine apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquility. They should avoid turning Section 145 into an alternative forum for deciding property disputes, which would amount to encroaching upon civil court jurisdiction.
To support this legal position, the Court referred to several judicial precedents, including:
- Ashok Kumar vs. State of Uttrakand, (2013) 3 SCC 366
- Sharad Yadav @ Gappu vs. State of U.P., 2013 SCC Online All 4840
- Madhu Sharma vs. Ajit Sharma, (2013) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 837
- Brahmputra Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Premchand Tolaram Babna Charitable Trust, Assam, 2012 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 375 (Gau)
- Shanti Kumar Panda vs. Shakuntala Devi, (2004) 1 SCC 438
- Ranbir Singh vs. Dalbir Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 700
- Prakash Chand Sachdeva vs. P.R. & Anr., (1994) 1 SCC 471
- Chandu Naik vs. Sitaram B. Naik, (1978) 1 SCC 210
- R.H. Bhutani vs. Mani J. Desai, 1968 SCC Online SC 5
- Bhinka vs. Charan Singh, AIR 1959 SC 960
Further, the Court referred to decisions such as Md. Ansaruddin vs. State of Assam (2008 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 479 (Gau)), Chirstalin Costa vs. State of Goa (1993 MHLJ 1409), and Tarulata Devi vs. Nikhil Bandhu Mishra (1982 SCC Online Gau 35) to highlight that misuse of Section 145 to interfere in civil disputes amounts to colourable exercise of power.
Applying these principles to the present case, the Court examined the preliminary order dated 31.12.1988 passed by the Executive Magistrate, through which the Section 145 CrPC proceeding started.
From this order, the Court found that:
- The Executive Magistrate noted rival claims of both parties regarding title and possession.
- He stated that he could not decide possession without an inquiry and, therefore, initiated a Section 145 proceeding.
- However, he did not record anywhere that the dispute was “likely to cause breach of public peace”.
- No grounds for any such apprehension were mentioned in the preliminary order.
The High Court held that this omission was crucial. Since the condition precedent for invoking Section 145 CrPC — a recorded satisfaction about likely breach of public peace based on the police report or other information — was missing, the Executive Magistrate had no occasion to initiate the proceeding.
The Court found that the facts clearly showed only a private civil dispute over title and possession. Such a dispute could be properly dealt with only by a competent civil court. The Executive Magistrate should have advised the parties to go to civil court instead of starting proceedings under Section 145 CrPC.
Therefore, the High Court concluded that initiating the Section 145 CrPC proceeding in this case was a colourable exercise of power and an encroachment upon the jurisdiction of the civil court. It amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and was liable to be quashed.
On this basis, the Court did not need to examine in detail which party was in actual possession. Instead, it went to the root and held that the proceeding itself was without legal foundation.
Consequently, the Patna High Court:
- Quashed and set aside the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Siwan in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2001.
- Quashed and set aside the criminal proceeding under Section 145 CrPC initiated by the Executive Magistrate, Maharajganj.
- Left it open to the parties to approach the civil court for adjudication of their rights, if they so wished.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for villagers, landowners, and lawyers in Bihar and beyond, because it clearly draws a line between criminal preventive jurisdiction and civil property disputes.
Many parties try to use Section 145 CrPC to gain an advantage in land disputes by bringing in the police and Executive Magistrate. The Patna High Court has made it clear that Section 145 CrPC is not a shortcut to decide land rights.
If there is no real danger to public peace, and the dispute is only between private parties over who owns or possesses land, the proper remedy is to file a case in the civil court, not to push for Section 145 action.
The judgment also warns Executive Magistrates not to overstep their powers. It stresses that misuse of Section 145 CrPC is a “colourable exercise” of power and an abuse of process. This protects ordinary citizens from being dragged into unnecessary criminal-type proceedings in what are essentially civil disputes.
For litigants, the message is clear: where land rights and long-standing title issues are involved, you should seek relief from a civil court, and, if needed, ask for injunctions or the appointment of a receiver, instead of depending on preventive criminal proceedings.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Was the proceeding under Section 145 CrPC validly initiated when the Executive Magistrate did not record any satisfaction about likely breach of public peace?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that absence of recorded satisfaction and grounds regarding apprehension of breach of public peace meant the basic condition for invoking Section 145 CrPC was not met. The proceeding was without jurisdiction. - Issue: Could the Executive Magistrate use Section 145 CrPC to handle what was essentially a private dispute about title and possession of land?
Answer: No. The Court held that pure civil disputes on title and right to possession fall within the exclusive domain of civil courts. Using Section 145 in such circumstances is a colourable exercise of power and an abuse of process. - Issue: What relief should be granted when a Section 145 CrPC proceeding is found to be an abuse of process?
Answer: The High Court quashed both the Sessions Court’s revisional order dated 30.11.2018 and the underlying Section 145 CrPC proceeding, while granting liberty to the parties to move the civil court for adjudication of their rights.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Ashok Kumar vs. State of Uttrakand, (2013) 3 SCC 366
- Sharad Yadav @ Gappu vs. State of U.P., 2013 SCC Online All 4840
- Madhu Sharma vs. Ajit Sharma, (2013) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 837
- Brahmputra Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Premchand Tolaram Babna Charitable Trust, Assam, 2012 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 375 (Gau)
- Shanti Kumar Panda vs. Shakuntala Devi, (2004) 1 SCC 438
- Ranbir Singh vs. Dalbir Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 700
- Prakash Chand Sachdeva vs. P.R. & Anr., (1994) 1 SCC 471
- Chandu Naik vs. Sitaram B. Naik, (1978) 1 SCC 210
- R.H. Bhutani vs. Mani J. Desai, 1968 SCC Online SC 5
- Bhinka vs. Charan Singh, AIR 1959 SC 960
- Md. Ansaruddin vs. State of Assam, 2008 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 479 (Gau)
- Chirstalin Costa vs. State of Goa, 1993 MHLJ 1409
- Tarulata Devi vs. Nikhil Bandhu Mishra, 1982 SCC Online Gau 35
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 391 of 2019
Arising Out Of: P.S. Case No. – Year-0, Thana – (not specified beyond “M.H. Nagar (Hasanpura)”), District – Siwan
Case Title: Nand Jee Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Date of Judgment: 20.02.2025
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 778
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
- For Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5: Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Criminal revision against order in criminal revision (Sessions Court) arising from proceedings under Section 145 CrPC before the Executive Magistrate
Final Outcome: Sessions Court’s order dated 30.11.2018 and the entire Section 145 CrPC proceeding were quashed; parties given liberty to approach civil court.
Link to Judgment: Click here to access the official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
