Civil Courts, not Section 145 CrPC, must determine inter se rights of title and possession.

The dispute concerns Plot No. 2280 in the Hill Drive Area, Bhavnagar.

The Executive Magistrate, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Case No. 1/2004, initially passed an order under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) restricting Respondent No. 1 from trespassing, effectively recognizing the applicants' possession

Respondent No. 1 challenged this before the Sessions Court, alleging that the applicants held possession through forged documents and that the property was subject to a cancelled sale transaction and sub judice matters

The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Revision Application No. 15/2005, set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed the Collector to appoint an independent Executive Magistrate to determine who held possession on the date of the original complaint while maintaining status quo

The applicants moved the High Court to quash the Sessions Court’s order

1. Whether the Executive Magistrate has the jurisdiction to determine questions of title or possessory title under Section 145 of the CrPC when the dispute is primarily civil in nature?

2. Whether the proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC should continue when the inter se rights regarding title and possession are subject to determination by a Civil Court?

The court applied Section 145 of the CrPC, which governs disputes likely to cause a breach of peace regarding immovable property.

It relied on Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, noting that an Agreement of Sale does not create interest in the property

The court further applied the principle established in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. [(1985) 1 SCC 427], Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey [(2000) 4 SCC 440], and Mohd. Abid & Ors. v. Ravi Naresh & Ors. [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 921], which holds that once a matter is of a civil nature or a Civil Court is seized of the matter, parallel proceedings under Section 145 CrPC regarding title or possession are unsustainable and must end, as these rights are to be determined exclusively by a Civil Court

The Court observed that neither party could establish a clear legal title; Respondent No. 1 claimed possession via an Agreement of Sale (which creates no interest under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act), while the applicants’ claim was challenged on grounds of forgery

The Court reasoned that Section 145 of the CrPC does not authorize an Executive Magistrate to adjudicate complex questions of title or possessory title

Since the dispute involved allegations of forgery and rival claims of possession based on civil documents, the Court held that the appropriate recourse is for the parties to establish their rights in a Civil Court

The Court found that the Sessions Court erred in directing a fresh inquiry into possession by an Executive Magistrate, as such inter se rights are subject to civil determination

The Court held that the directions regarding possession and status quo under Section 145 CrPC were unsustainable

It clarified that any pending or future civil proceedings must be decided independently on their own merits without being influenced by this judgment

Additionally, any criminal proceedings regarding the alleged forgery are to proceed independently before the competent authority

Rule was made absolute