Section 145 CrPC proceedings are void when actual possession is admitted and no bona fide dispute exists.

Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Hailakandi, alleging that the petitioner (a purported tenant) had ceased paying rent and was attempting to grab land via "large scale massacre" and breach of peace

On 23.04.2022, a police report noted a "land dispute" and that both parties were "desperate and danger in nature"

On 27.04.2022, the ADM passed an ex-parte order attaching the land under Section 146(1) CrPC

Simultaneously, Respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit (T.S. No. 69/2022) for declaration of title and recovery of possession, which was later withdrawn

The petitioner challenged the ADM’s proceedings, arguing that since Respondent No. 2 admitted the petitioner was in physical possession (as a tenant), no dispute regarding the "factum of possession" existed to warrant Magistrate intervention

Whether the Executive Magistrate has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 145/146 CrPC when the fact of actual possession is admitted by the first party

Whether the orders of attachment and the continuation of the criminal proceeding constituted an abuse of the process of law

Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which empowers an Executive Magistrate to intervene in land disputes likely to cause a breach of peace

The core principle of Section 145(4) is that the Magistrate must determine which party was in actual possession on the date of the order, or within two months prior if forcibly dispossessed

the jurisdiction is restorative and preventive, not a substitute for civil litigation regarding title

The Court reasoned that the primary purpose of Section 145 CrPC is to determine the "fact of actual possession" to prevent a breach of peace

the respondent’s own pleadings admitted that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land (initially as a tenant) and was residing in a dwelling house thereon

The Court observed that Section 145(1) requires the Magistrate to be satisfied that a dispute exists; however, where the possession of one party is an admitted fact, there is no "issue" for the Magistrate to decide under Section 145(4)

a Magistrate cannot draw a proceeding if the party sought to be evicted has been in possession for longer than two months before the police report

Since the respondent’s claim was essentially one of non-payment of rent and a desire to evict a tenant, the vital condition for assuming jurisdiction under Section 145 was absent

The Court answered that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned proceedings in Case No. 148M/2021 under Sections 144/145/146 of the CrPC