Pendency of civil litigation regarding possession precludes parallel criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC.

The Petitioner, Rajpal Singh, claimed to be a co-sharer in agricultural land (Khasra Nos. 81 and 81/1) situated in Besaroli, alleging it was ancestral property

He contended that his father (Respondent No. 2) executed a gift deed in favor of the private respondents to deprive him of his share, leading to disputes and an apprehension of breach of peace

On 04.09.2024, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Makrana, ordered the attachment of the property and appointed a receiver

However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Makrana, set aside the SDM's order on 18.11.2024

The record revealed that civil and revenue proceedings—including a suit for partition and declaration where a status quo order was already in place—were pending between the parties

1. Whether an Executive Magistrate is legally justified in initiating parallel proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the CrPC when civil litigation concerning the same property and possession is already pending before a competent court

2. Whether the appointment of a receiver and attachment of property requires the existence of emergent circumstances and an imminent danger of breach of peace supported by cogent material

The Court applied Sections 145 and 146 of the CrPC (corresponding to provisions in the BNSS) concerning disputes likely to cause a breach of peace

It relied on Ashoknath Chela Kevalnath v. State of Rajasthan (SBCRLMP No. 1949/2022), which mandates that attachment requires a recorded satisfaction of emergent circumstances and imminent danger

The Court further applied the precedent from Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. [(1985) 1 SCC 427], establishing that parallel criminal proceedings are unjustified when civil courts are already seized of the possession issue, as civil decrees are binding on criminal courts

The Court observed that the Executive Magistrate's jurisdiction is limited to preventing a breach of peace and does not extend to adjudicating titles or rights to possession, which are strictly within the purview of Civil or Revenue Courts

In this instance, the Petitioner had already acknowledged joint possession in pending revenue proceedings where a status quo order was operative

The Court reasoned that when a Civil Court is capable of issuing protective orders and determining rights, continuing criminal proceedings for the same subject matter amounts to a "needless duplication of efforts" and an unnecessary expenditure of public resources

Since the civil court's determination is binding, the criminal court's intervention lacks a legal foundation unless there is a distinct, imminent threat to public tranquility that the civil court cannot address

The High Court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 18.11.2024. The SDM’s order dated 04.09.2024, directing attachment and appointment of a receiver, was quashed and set aside