Orders under Sections 145/147 CrPC require effective notice and meaningful hearing before adverse directions.

The applicants challenged, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the order dated 24.11.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Niwari, in Case No. 286/J.N.114.

The proceedings under Sections 145 and 147 Cr.P.C. were initiated by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who alleged that the applicants had constructed a three-foot-high chabutara/platform over a common road, obstructing access to their houses.

Although the Magistrate directed issuance of notices on 19.06.2014 and 16.07.2014, the record did not clearly establish effective service upon the applicants.

They were subsequently proceeded against in their absence, culminating in the order restraining further construction over the disputed portion.

The applicants relied upon a Patwari’s report, panchnama and spot map referring to the age of the house and the existence of an old temple nearby.

The respondents maintained that the construction obstructed a public/common passage and opposed interference with the Magistrate’s order.

Whether the order dated 24.11.2014 could be sustained when the record did not demonstrate effective service of notice upon the applicants or provide them an effective opportunity of hearing

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should determine the parties’ competing claims concerning the legality of the construction, possession, title, or alleged obstruction of the passage

The Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C., which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It considered Sections 145 and 147 Cr.P.C., which confer preventive jurisdiction upon the Magistrate in disputes concerning possession, land, public rights and rights of way where there is apprehension of breach of peace or obstruction.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, requiring that a person likely to be adversely affected by an order must receive effective notice and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and submissions before such order is passed.

It also held that preventive proceedings having civil consequences must be conducted in accordance with law and that disputed questions of title, possession and factual obstruction should ordinarily be determined by the competent authority after hearing all affected parties.

The order-sheets showed directions for issuance of notice but contained no satisfactory material proving that notice had actually been served on the applicants.

The applicants were nevertheless treated as absent and an adverse restraint order was passed against them.

Because the order directly restricted their use of the disputed property and construction, it had civil consequences and could not be sustained without compliance with natural justice.

The Patwari’s report and other spot materials also required consideration after hearing both sides, although the High Court declined to assess their evidentiary merits.

The Court further held that the competing factual claims—whether the construction lay on a public/common road, whether it obstructed access, and whether the applicants possessed any right to construct—were matters for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and not for determination under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the procedural defect warranted remand without expressing any view on the substantive rights of the parties.

The applicants were directed to appear and were to be given an opportunity to present their case and produce relevant material, following which the Magistrate was to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.

Until fresh determination, the parties were directed to maintain peace, not take the law into their own hands, forcibly dispossess one another, or make further alteration or construction over the disputed portion.

The Court expressly left open all questions concerning title, ownership, possession, legality of construction, existence or width of the road, and alleged obstruction.