Civil remedies do not bar Section 147 CrPC jurisdiction to protect an existing right of user.

The dispute concerned a passage measuring approximately nine feet, described as a “14 Kari Rasta,” situated between the parties’ properties.

The petitioner claimed that the passage had been left by his father for use by both branches of the family and the general public and had been used for several decades.

He alleged that the opposite parties obstructed the passage by installing a “Jafari”.

An agreement dated 16 November 2011 acknowledged the arrangement concerning use of the passage.

A Karamchari’s report dated 30 June 2017 recorded the existence of a passage, while the Anchal-Amin’s measurement report dated 16 August 2017 stated that only approximately seven Kari remained available and that the rest had been covered by the obstruction.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhepura initiated proceedings under Section 147 Cr.P.C. and, by order dated 4 October 2017, directed removal of the obstruction.

In revision, the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Madhepura set aside the S.D.M.’s order on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature and ought to be decided by a Civil Court.

Whether the existence of a possible civil dispute concerning title or easementary rights barred the Executive Magistrate from exercising jurisdiction under Section 147 Cr.P.C. to protect an existing right of user of the passage?

Whether the revisional court erred in setting aside the S.D.M.’s order without properly examining the scope of Section 147 Cr.P.C., the material on record, and the likelihood of breach of peace?

Whether the S.D.M.’s order directing removal of the obstruction was supported by sufficient material and jurisdictionally valid?

Section 147 Cr.P.C. empowers an Executive Magistrate to address disputes concerning the right of user of land or water where such dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace; the jurisdiction is preventive and is intended to preserve an existing right of user until the parties obtain a final declaration from a competent Civil Court.

The existence of a civil remedy or an incidental dispute concerning title does not, by itself, oust jurisdiction under Section 147 Cr.P.C., provided that the statutory ingredients are otherwise satisfied.

The Court also relied on Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2025 INSC 1484, which explains that criminal revisional jurisdiction is a statutory supervisory jurisdiction requiring examination of the correctness, legality, and propriety of the subordinate court’s order.

The High Court held that the immediate dispute was not limited to title or ownership but concerned the obstruction of a passage allegedly used by the petitioner, his family, and members of the public for a considerable period.

The Karamchari’s report, the Anchal-Amin’s measurement report, and the accompanying map prima facie established the existence of the passage and subsequent obstruction.

The parties had also been heard by the S.D.M., and the dispute had resulted in an altercation and registration of a criminal case, providing a factual basis for apprehension of breach of peace.

Consequently, the S.D.M. acted within the preventive jurisdiction conferred by Section 147 Cr.P.C.

The revisional court erred by treating the availability of a civil remedy as sufficient reason to invalidate the proceedings, instead of examining whether the statutory requirements of Section 147 Cr.P.C. were met.

The High Court clarified that it was not finally adjudicating title, ownership, or easementary rights.

It found the S.D.M.’s order legally sustainable and held that the revisional court had committed an error of law by setting it aside primarily on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature.

Accordingly, the order dated 12 July 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Madhepura in Criminal Revision No. 43 of 2018 was quashed and set aside qua the petitioner, with consequential relief; the parties remained at liberty to pursue their civil remedies independently.