The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence: when a dispute is fundamentally civil in nature and pending before a civil court, criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must not be permitted to proceed. This judgment provides critical clarity to practitioners navigating overlapping civil and criminal remedies in land disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on Khasra No. 300, a four-acre plot in Village Kirgi, Tehsil Pushprajgarh, District Anuppur. The parties, descendants of a common ancestor, have long contested ownership and possession of the land. The conflict escalated when one side initiated criminal proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, alleging imminent breach of peace and seeking possession through a magistrate’s order.
Procedural History
The matter progressed through multiple forums:
- 1989: Civil Suit No. 21-A/1989 filed before the Civil Judge Class-II, Shahdol, seeking declaration of title and possession.
- 2004: Appeal No. 11-A/2004 filed by the respondents was dismissed on 05.01.2005.
- 2005: Second Appeal No. 845/2005 was filed in the High Court, remaining pending.
- 2021: Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pushprajgarh, initiated proceedings under Section 145 CrPC (Criminal Case No. 01/2021) and passed an order granting possession to the petitioners.
- 2021: Additional Sessions Judge, Rajendraram, upheld the Magistrate’s order in Criminal Revision No. 14/2021.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, arguing that the dispute was purely civil and already sub judice in the pending Second Appeal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC can be maintained when a civil suit concerning the same property is pending before a civil court, and whether such proceedings violate the principle that criminal law must not be used to resolve civil title disputes.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners’ counsel contended that the dispute was exclusively civil in nature, having been pending since 1989. They relied on Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. to argue that Section 145 CrPC is not meant to determine title or possession where civil remedies are available. They emphasized that allowing criminal proceedings to proceed would undermine the civil court’s jurisdiction and lead to multiplicity of litigation.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the criminal proceedings were initiated to prevent imminent breach of peace and that possession was being wrongfully withheld. They contended that Section 145 CrPC is a preventive provision and does not require a final determination of title, and that the civil suit’s pendency did not bar criminal intervention.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the dispute and the purpose of Section 145 CrPC, which is designed to prevent breaches of peace in cases of urgent, temporary possession disputes - not to adjudicate title. The Court noted that the parties had been litigating ownership in civil courts for over three decades, with a Second Appeal still pending. The Court held that criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC cannot be permitted to usurp the domain of civil courts when the core issue is one of title or ownership.
"Criminal proceedings under Section 145 CrPC should not be permitted to continue when the dispute is predominantly of a civil nature and civil litigation in respect of the same subject-matter is pending."
The Court distinguished cases where Section 145 CrPC was rightly invoked to maintain public order during transient possession conflicts, noting that this case involved a long-standing, complex title dispute. The Court further observed that the Magistrate’s order effectively determined possession in favor of one party, which is a civil adjudication beyond the scope of criminal procedure. The reliance on Ram Sumer Puri Mahant was found to be squarely applicable.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC cannot be maintained when a civil suit concerning the same property is pending. The orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge were set aside. The parties were directed to pursue their remedies exclusively through civil law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Criminal Proceedings Cannot Determine Title
- Practitioners must immediately challenge any Section 145 CrPC proceeding initiated to resolve title or ownership disputes.
- File applications under Section 482 CrPC to quash such proceedings at the earliest opportunity.
- Cite Ram Sumer Puri Mahant as binding precedent to demonstrate that civil courts alone have jurisdiction over title.
Civil Litigation Preempts Criminal Intervention
- If a civil suit is pending - even if not yet decided - criminal proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are impermissible.
- The pendency of a Second Appeal qualifies as ongoing civil litigation for this purpose.
- Magistrates must verify the existence of civil proceedings before initiating Section 145 CrPC proceedings.
Procedural Compliance Must Be Scrutinized
- Courts must not mechanically accept police reports alleging "likelihood of breach of peace" without examining whether the dispute is civil in essence.
- The burden lies on the state to prove that the dispute is not civil in nature before invoking Section 145 CrPC.
