LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, December 14, 2012

no ground exists to attach the property under Section 146, Cr.P.C. - A case of emergency, as per Section 146 of the Code has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of peace. When the reports indicate that one of the parties is in possession, rightly or wrongly, the Magistrate cannot pass an order of attachment on the ground of emergency. The order acknowledges the fact that Ashok Kumar has started construction in the property in question, therefore, possession of property is with the appellant – Ashok Kumar, whether it is legal or not, is not for the SDM to decide. Under Section 146(1), a Magistrate can pass an order of attachment of the subject of dispute if it be a case of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was in such possession, or he cannot decide as to which of them was in possession. Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace and Section 146 cannot be separated from Section 145, Cr.P.C. It can only be read in the context of Section 145, Cr.P.C. If after the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate is of the opinion that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject of dispute at the time of the order passed under Section 145(1) or is unable to decide which of the parties was in such possession, he may attach the subject of dispute, until a competent court has determined the right of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof.


                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2038         OF 2012 @
                Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3932 of 2012

Ashok Kumar                                  .. Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.                    .. Respondent(s)



                               J U D G M E N T



K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.


1.    Leave granted.



2.    We are, in this case, concerned with
the  validity  of  an  Order  of
attachment passed under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure  by
Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Haridwar on 25.11.2009  attaching  property
situated in khasra No. 181  admeasuring  0.400  hectares  situated  at  Gram
Subhash Garh, Pargana Jawala Pur, Tehsil and District Haridwar.
The  above-
mentioned order was affirmed by the High Court of  Uttarakhand  at  Nainital
in Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 1029 of 2010 dated 27.03.2012.



3.    Mona Sharma, the second respondent herein, mother of  minor  children,
preferred O.S. No. 168 of 2009  before  the  Court  of  Civil  Judge  (J.D.)
Haridwar with the appellant and third respondent as defendants  praying  for
a decree of temporary injunction  restraining  them  from  interfering  with
their peaceful enjoyment and  possession  of  the  above-mentioned  and  few
other items of properties.
 The suit  was  instituted  on  02.09.2009.   An
application was also preferred under Order XXXIX Rules 1  and  2  read  with
Section 151 of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  for  an  order  of  interim
injunction.  
The Civil Court did not grant any interim injunction, but  only
ordered notice to the respondents on 14.9.2009.



4.    Mona Sharma later filed an application under Section 145,  Cr.P.C.  on
19.9.2009 in respect of the disputed property before SDM  for  an  order  of
attachment of the property in question.
An enquiry  was  conducted  through
the  Pathri  P.S.,  District  Haridwar  and  Sub-Inspector  of  Police   who
submitted the report dated 01.10.2009 before  the  SDM,  Haridwar.   
It  was
indicated in the report that house of Ashok Kumar is situated  in  the  land
in dispute where he has undertaken  some  construction.    
Further,  it  was
also opined that the possibility of breach of peace in  the  locality  could
also be not ruled out.     
Meanwhile, in the civil suit, after conducting  a
local inspection, a report was submitted by the Amin on  21.11.2009  stating
that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and the construction  is
going on.   
After  referring  to  the  report  of  the  Sub-Inspector  dated
01.10.2009,  SDM  Haridwar  passed  the  impugned  order  dated   25.11.2009
attaching the property under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C., the validity of  which
is under challenge in these proceedings.



5.    Shri Ambrish Kumar,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant,
submitted that
the SDM has committed a  grave  error  in  passing  an  order
under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C.  attaching  the  property  in  question  since
possession of the  property  by  the  appellant  was  not  disputed  by  the
respondent while the civil suit was  filed,  so  also  when  an  application
under Section 145 was preferred.
Learned counsel  submitted  that  the  SDM
has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing an  order  dated  25.11.2009,  when
the same issue is pending consideration in a civil court.  
Learned  counsel
also pointed out that the respondent could not get an  order  of  injunction
from the civil court, hence he invoked the jurisdiction  of  the  SDM  under
Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. and got an order  of  attachment  of  the  property.
Learned counsel submitted that the SDM has committed a gross  illegality  in
passing the order, when possession of the property by the appellant has  not
been disputed.



6.    Shri Vivek Gupta, learned counsel appearing for  the  respondents,  on
the other hand, submitted that there is no illegality in  the  order  passed
by the SDM attaching the  property  under  Section  146(1),  Cr.P.C.,  since
there is dispute regarding the possession of the property  in  question  and
tension is existing and peace can be breached at any time.  Learned  counsel
submitted that there is no error in the order  passed  by  the  High  Court,
confirming the order of the SDM.



7.    We are of the view that the  SDM  has  not  properly  appreciated  the
scope of Sections 145 and 146(1), Cr.P.C.    
The  object  of  Section  145,
Cr.P.C. is merely to maintain law and order and to prevent breach  of  peace
by maintaining one or other of  the  parties  in  possession,  and  not  for
evicting any person from possession.  
The scope of  enquiry  under  Section
145 is in respect of actual possession without reference to  the  merits  or
claim of any of the parties to a right to possess the  subject  of  dispute.




8.    We may notice, in the instant case, the application was  preferred  by
the respondent under Section  145,  Cr.P.C.   and  on  that  application,  a
report was called for and the Sub-Inspector of Police submitted  its  report
before the SDM on 01.10.2009.
 It is stated in the enquiry report  that  the
Sub-Inspector of the village went  to  Subhashgarh  and  noticed  that  even
though the landed property stood in the name  of  Mona  Sharma  yet  it  was
found that Ashok Kumar, appellant herein was in possession of  the  land  in
question in khasra No. 181.  
The relevant portion of  the  report  reads  as
follows:

                 “It is submission of applicant Mona Sharma that above  both
           Ashok Kumar and Narendra Kumar have taken  possession  over  her
           land and above both have stated that they  have  purchased  land
           from Bal Krishan husband of Mona Sharma whereas, this land comes
           in    the    category    of    10(Ka),    which    cannot     be
           sold/purchased...................In land there is situated under
           constructed house of Ashok Kumar in present time and  eucalyptus
           and mangoes trees of Narendra Kumar s/o Jairam, r/o  Subhashgarh
           are standing.”



9.    Further, it is relevant to note that  even  in  the  SDM  order  dated
25.11.2009, the possession of the property by the appellant  –  Ashok  Kumar
has been noticed.  
The  operative  portion  of  the  impugned  order  dated
25.11.2009 reads as follows:

                 “Applicant wants to take possession over  the  property  in
           question, but opp. Party Ashok in forcible manner does not leave
           possession and there is full tense of  spot  taking  possession,
           the peace can break at any  time,  therefore,  the  property  in
           question should be attached.  The property in question was given
           to father in law of the applicant on lease by State Government.”



10.    The order also records  the  statement  of  learned  counsel  of  the
appellant, which reads as follows:

                 “The applicant has  no  possession  over  the  property  in
           question.  Applicant accepts the possession  of  opposite  party
           Ashok  on  property  in  question,  there  is  not  any  dispute
           regarding possession.”





11.   The SDM then stated as follows:

                 “In view of report of Sub Inspector P.S. Pathri also  there
           is dispute  in  parties  regarding  possession  of  property  in
           question on spot and the  tension  is  existing  and  peace  can
           breach at any time hence, it appears just and proper  to  attach
           the property in question during hearing and to  give  any  (sic)
           anyone for maintaining peace law and order situation on spot.”



The operative portion of the order, further, reads as follows:

                 “Hence, property in question khasra No.  181,  rakba  0.400
           hectares situated  in  mauja  Subhashgarh  stands  attached  u/s
           146(1) Cr.P.C. S.O. Pathri is directed that he may  go  on  spot
           and by taking the property in question in his possession  ensure
           giving the same in (sic) of anyone and sent (sic) in this  court
           at any time before fixed date 30.12.2009.  Put up on  30.12.2009
           for written statement of first party.”



12.   The above order would indicate that the SDM has, in our view,  wrongly
invoked the powers under Section 146(1),Cr.P.C.
 Under  Section  146(1),  a
Magistrate can pass an order of attachment of the subject of dispute  if  it
be a case of emergency, or if he decides that none of  the  parties  was  in
such possession, or he cannot decide as to which of them was in  possession.
 Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code together  constitute  a
scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a  likelihood  of  a
breach of the peace and Section 146 cannot be separated  from  Section  145,
Cr.P.C.  It can only be read in the context  of  Section  145,  Cr.P.C.   If
after the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate  is  of  the
opinion that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject  of
dispute at the time of the order passed under Section 145(1)  or  is  unable
to decide which of the parties was in such possession,  he  may  attach  the
subject of dispute, until a competent court has determined the right of  the
parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof.



13.   The ingredients necessary for passing an order under Section  145  (1)
of the Code would not  automatically  attract  for  the  attachment  of  the
property.  Under Section 146, a Magistrate has  to  satisfy  himself  as  to
whether emergency exists before he passes an order of  attachment.   A  case
of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146  of  the  Code,  has  to  be
distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of the peace.   The
Magistrate, before passing an order under  Section  146,  must  explain  the
circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency.  In  other  words,
to infer a situation of emergency,  there  must  be  a  material  on  record
before Magistrate when  the  submission  of  the  parties  filed,  documents
produced or evidence adduced.



14.   We find from this case there is nothing  to  show  that  an  emergency
exists so as to  invoke  Section  146(1)  and  to  attach  the  property  in
question.  
A case of emergency, as per Section 146 of the Code  has  to  be
distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of peace.
When  the
reports indicate that one of  the  parties  is  in  possession,  rightly  or
wrongly, the Magistrate cannot pass an order of attachment on the ground  of
emergency.  
The order acknowledges the fact that  Ashok  Kumar  has  started
construction in the property in question, therefore, possession of  property
is with the appellant – Ashok Kumar, whether it is legal or not, is not  for
the SDM to decide.



15.   We also notice that the respondent herein has filed a civil  suit  for
injunction  before  Civil  Judge  (J.D.)  Haridwar  on  02.09.2009  and   an
application for interim injunction is  also  pending,  on  which  the  civil
court has issued only a notice.  An Amin report  was  called  for  and  Amin
submitted its report on 21.11.2009.  Civil suit was filed prior in point  of
time, it is for the civil court to decide as to who  was  in  possession  on
the date of the filing of the suit.  In any view, there is nothing  to  show
that there was an emergency so as to invoke the powers under Section  146(1)
to attach the property, specially, when the civil court  is  seized  of  the
matter.  Under such circumstances, we are inclined to set  aside  the  order
passed by the SDM dated 25.11.2009 and the order of  the  High  court  dated
27.03.2012.



16.   Learned counsel appearing for the appellant  submitted  that
 he  will
not change the character of the property or create  third  party  rights  in
respect of the property in  question  till  the  civil  court  passes  final
orders on the application filed by the respondent for temporary  injunction.
  The submission of the learned counsel is recorded and
we direct the  civil
court to  pass  final  orders  on  the  interim  application  filed  by  the
respondent for  injunction.   We  make  it  clear  that  we  have  also  not
expressed any final  opinion  on  the  contentions  raised  by  the  learned
counsel.  We have  however  found  that  no  ground  exists  to  attach  the
property under Section 146, Cr.P.C.



17.   The appeal is disposed of, as above.



                                                           …………………………………..J.
                                        (K.S. Radhakrishnan)




                                                           …………………………………..J.
                                        (Dipak Misra)
New Delhi,
December 13, 2012