Dr. Nakul Raj Singhai And Others vs Pramila Singhai

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

(i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned order passed in Case no.17/Apradhik/145/2024 passed by learned SDM Adhartal on 6.5.2024 in the interest of justice for which the petitioners shall every pray.

(ii) Any other order/ direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed, in the interest of justice.

It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adhartal, District Jabalpur by order dated 06/05/2024 passed in Criminal Case No.17/Criminal/145/2024 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. has directed the parties to maintain the status quo. It is submitted that if situation is of emergent in nature and if Sub Divisional Magistrate is not in a position to form a prima facie opinion as to who is in possession of property in dispute, then can pass an order of attachment and appointment of receiver. However, unless and until the SDM comes to a conclusion that complainant is in possession of property in dispute, should not have directed the parties to maintain the status quo thereby leaving the matter to the discretion of the parties to claim that who is in possession.

Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the respondent that in fact on 06/05/2024, the applicants had appeared before SDM, Adhartal and had made a statement that in case if an order to maintain the status quo is passed, then they will not have any objection and in spite of making such a statement, applicants have preferred this application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C, SDM is empowered to pass a preliminary order after getting it satisfied with regard to the existence of possibility of breach of peace and if the SDM is of the view that in view of emergent situation, an order of attachment or appointment of receiver is to be passed,

then he could have done so. However, for passing an order to maintain the status quo, SDM has not given any finding (prima facie in nature) to the effect that who is in possession of property in dispute. Even the consent given by applicants has not been mentioned in the order. Therefore, whether the applicants had given any consent to pass an order of maintaining the status quo or not, is also in dispute.

Furthermore, passing an order to maintain the status quo will give liberty to the litigating parties to interpret the order as per their own convenience thereby giving birth to further litigation. Therefore, SDM before directing the parties to maintain the status quo should have given a prima facie finding with regard to the possession over the property in question. Having not done so, this Court is of considered opinion that directing the parties to maintain the status quo, SDM has created a situation where there is every likelihood of further litigation because every party has been given authority to interpret the word "possession" as per their own convenience.

Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties, this Court is of considered opinion that order dated 06/05/2024 passed by SDM Adhartal, District Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.17/Criminal/145/2024 Section 145 Cr.P.C., cannot be given the stamp of approval. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside.

If the SDM Adhartal, District Jabalpur is of the view that an emergent situation has arisen and he is unable to hold that who is in possession, then he shall pass an order under Section 146 of Cr.P.C. or if he is of the view that one of the party is in possession, then after recording that finding shall pass an interim order.

With aforesaid observation, application is allowed.

It is needless to mention here that this Court has not given any finding as to who is in possession of the property in dispute. The same shall be decided by SDM Adhartal, District Jabalpur strictly in accordance with law without getting influenced or prejudiced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.

However, it is made clear that like Civil Court, the SDM has no authority to decide the civil rights and that aspect should be left for the Civil Courts.