Section 144 CrPC proceedings cannot conclusively determine the genuineness of claims or possession.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 11 March 2016 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Patna, in Criminal Revision No. 785 of 2015.

The revision concerned an order dated 21 November 2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar, in Misc. Case No. 1035(M) of 2015 under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

The dispute related to possession and claims over plot/property No. K-36, Hanuman Nagar, Patna.

The petitioners relied, inter alia, on a “no objection” certificate issued by the Peoples’ Cooperative House Construction Society Ltd. in favour of petitioner No. 1 for sanction of a residential building plan.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered documents produced by the petitioners, including a registered sale deed, bank-cheque records, nomination documents, electricity bills and society rent receipts, and rejected the application of the first party while observing that the second party’s claim appeared better supported by documentary evidence.

In revision, the District and Sessions Judge held that genuineness of the claim or possession could not be determined in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., and clarified that the order would not affect the parties’ future rights.

The petitioners thereafter invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction against that order.

Whether, in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate or revisional court could record a finding regarding the genuineness of the parties’ title or possession over the disputed property.

Whether the petition remained maintainable or required adjudication after the limited-duration Section 144 proceeding had ceased to operate.

Section 144 Cr.P.C. is a preventive and temporary jurisdiction intended to address an urgent apprehended breach of peace; it is not a proceeding for finally adjudicating title, genuineness of ownership claims, or civil possession.

Findings in such proceedings cannot determine or prejudice the parties’ substantive rights, which remain open for adjudication in appropriate civil or other legal proceedings.

The State also submitted that an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. has an operative life of sixty days and thereafter loses its efficacy and validity.

The High Court treated the District and Sessions Judge’s approach as legally sound because the controversy involved competing claims to possession and property rights, matters which cannot be conclusively determined in a summary preventive proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

Although the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had assessed the documents produced by the parties and made observations favouring the second party’s claim, those observations could not operate as a binding adjudication of title or possession.

The revisional court had therefore correctly clarified that the parties’ future rights would remain unaffected.

Further, since the Section 144 order was temporary and had already lost operative effect, the High Court found that the petition had substantially become academic or infructuous.

It upheld the position that possession, title, or the genuineness of competing claims could not be finally determined in the Section 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding, and that the observations made therein would not affect the parties’ future rights.

No substantive relief was granted to the petitioners.