Section 145 CrPC orders require reasoned findings based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence.

The respondent, Hans Raj, initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the J CrPC regarding land measuring 1 Kanal 13 Marlas (Survey No. 35) and 4 Kanal 2 Marlas (Survey No. 36) at Barnai, Jammu, alleging long-term cultivating possession and a threat of breach of peace by the petitioner

On 06.01.2016, the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Jammu, ordered the attachment of the land

Following multiple rounds of litigation and a parallel civil suit where the petitioner obtained an interim injunction [para 4], the ADM passed an order on 04.10.2018 (endorsed on 11.10.2018) withdrawing the attachment and vacating the preliminary order

The Revisional Court (1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu) set aside the ADM’s order on 28.01.2019, holding it was passed in a mechanical manner without evaluating evidence, and remanded the case

The petitioner challenged this remand under Section 561-A of the JK CrPC

1. Whether the Revisional Court was justified in setting aside the ADM’s order on the grounds that it was unreasoned and failed to consider the evidence on record

2. Whether the existence of civil court findings regarding possession necessitates the termination of proceedings under Section 145 CrPC

The court primarily applied Section 145 of the CrPC, which governs disputes likely to cause a breach of peace concerning land and requires the Magistrate to record a finding on possession based on an inquiry and evidence

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the JK CrPC (akin to Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS) to ensure the legality of the lower court's proceedings

It further relied on the principle that while a civil court's finding is a "matter of precedence" for a Magistrate under Section 145, it does not absolve the Magistrate from passing a reasoned order after following the prescribed statutory procedure

The High Court found that the ADM’s order dated 04.10.2018 was not a "reasoned order" because it failed to discuss or refer to the evidence led by the parties, including affidavits filed by the respondent

By neglecting the evidence, the ADM effectively "aborted" the legal proceedings in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 145 CrPC

Regarding the petitioner's argument that civil court orders in his favor should end the matter, the Court held that while such findings are relevant, they must be considered by the Magistrate during a proper hearing rather than serving as a justification for an unreasoned summary dismissal

The Court concluded that the Revisional Court correctly identified the procedural lapses and the casual nature of the ADM's adjudication

The court affirmed the remand of the case to the Magistrate for fresh findings after hearing both parties and considering the evidence, including the impact of any civil court decrees

No order as to costs was made