The High Court of Jharkhand has reaffirmed a foundational principle of criminal procedure: Section 145 CrPC is not a tool to resolve title disputes, but a mechanism to prevent breach of peace by determining immediate possession. This ruling provides critical clarity for practitioners handling inter-se property conflicts where civil remedies remain pending.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose over a piece of land in Village Ghatahua, Garhwa, where two rival groups - Gupta family and Baitha-Dhobi families - claimed ownership and possession. Tensions escalated into physical altercations, prompting one party to file an application under Section 145 CrPC before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate seeking maintenance of peace and determination of possession.
Procedural History
The case progressed through three stages:
- 2020: Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the Section 145 application, holding that rights of parties must be determined before possession could be assessed.
- 2021: The Sessions Judge allowed criminal revision, setting aside the Magistrate’s order but failed to direct a fresh hearing.
- 2022: Petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the Sessions Judge’s order and seek direction for a fresh adjudication.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought modification of the Sessions Judge’s order to direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to re-adjudicate the matter strictly on the basis of possession, not title, in accordance with settled legal principles under Section 145 CrPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Magistrate conducting proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may determine or adjudicate the underlying title or ownership of disputed property, or whether such proceedings are confined exclusively to the question of actual possession.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioners relied on State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani and Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. to argue that Section 145 CrPC is a summary, preventive provision meant solely to preserve the status quo and prevent breach of peace. They emphasized that adjudication of title is beyond the Magistrate’s jurisdiction and renders the proceeding ultra vires.
For the Respondent
The State and opposite parties contended that the Magistrate was justified in examining rights because the possession was allegedly based on a claim of title. They cited K. S. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala to suggest that possession and title are inseparable in rural land disputes. However, they offered no binding precedent contradicting the settled doctrine that Section 145 CrPC is not a substitute for civil suits.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legislative intent behind Section 145 CrPC, noting its purpose is to avert public disorder by swiftly determining who is in actual, physical possession. The Court observed that the Sessions Judge erred by allowing the Magistrate to delve into title disputes, which are civil in nature and require full trial procedures.
"The object of Section 145 CrPC is not to decide the title of the property but to prevent a breach of peace by determining who is in possession. Once possession is established, the parties are left to their civil remedies."
The Court further distinguished K. S. Gopalakrishnan by noting that even in that case, the Court did not authorize title adjudication - it merely recognized that possession may be inferred from documentary evidence, not decided by it. The Sessions Judge’s failure to remand the matter for a fresh determination on possession alone was a procedural flaw.
The Court held that any order under Section 145 CrPC that adjudicates title violates the statutory scheme and renders the proceeding void ab initio.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The High Court held that Section 145 CrPC proceedings must focus exclusively on possession, not title. The Sessions Judge’s order was modified to direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to re-adjudicate the matter strictly on the basis of actual possession, disregarding claims of ownership.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Possession Is the Sole Criterion
- Practitioners must file Section 145 applications with affidavits and evidence of actual, physical, and uncontested possession - not title deeds or inheritance claims.
- Any Magistrate who seeks to determine ownership must be challenged under Section 482 CrPC as acting without jurisdiction.
Civil Remedies Remain Unaffected
- Parties asserting title must pursue civil suits under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.
- A Section 145 order does not bind civil courts; it is not res judicata on title.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Sessions Judges must not merely set aside Magistrate orders - they must remand for fresh adjudication on possession.
- Failure to remand renders the revision order defective and subject to quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
