Patna High Court

Raj Kumar Sah and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 23 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The High Court quashed the order dated 12.08.2017 and the entire proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., holding that it was unlawful and an abuse of process.

Summary

The petitioners sought quashing of a criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. that had been converted from an earlier Section 144 proceeding concerning a land dispute. The High Court noted that the same parties and subject matter had already been dealt with in earlier Section 144 proceedings, one of which resulted in a finding of possession in favour of the petitioners, and that a civil suit (Title Suit No. 144 of 2008) concerning the same property was pending. The Court held that without a fresh, specific satisfaction of imminent breach of peace, the conversion to a Section 145 proceeding was unlawful and amounted to parallel litigation, an abuse of process. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that when a civil court is seized of title and possession issues, preventive criminal proceedings should not continue. Consequently, the order dated 12.08.2017 and the entire Section 145 proceeding were quashed, and the petitioners were directed to pursue their rights in the civil court.

Issues considered

The legality of converting a Section 144 proceeding into a Section 145 proceeding without fresh apprehension of breach of peace.
Whether parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 are permissible when a civil suit concerning the same property is pending.
Whether the S.D.O. had jurisdiction to continue the proceeding in the absence of specific satisfaction of imminent breach of peace.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 144, 145, 146, 482

Subjects

Section 144 Cr.P.C.
Section 145 Cr.P.C.
preventive jurisdiction
parallel litigation
civil suit pendency
abuse of process
inherent jurisdiction
quashing of criminal proceeding

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48244 of 2017
======================================================
1. Raj Kumar Sah
2. Niranjan Sah. Both sons of Shri Suresh Sah, Resident of Village- Puraini,
P.O. and P.S.- Puraini, District Muzaffarpur.
3. Md. Murtuza, Son of Late Safiruddin, Resident of Village- Yogiraj, P.O.-
Nayatola, P.S. Puraini, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Razaque, Son of Late Md. Zahiruddin, Resident of Village- Yogiraj, P.O.-
Nayatola, P.S. Puraini, District- Madhepura.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyam Sunder Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Pooja Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

8 23-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP appearing for

the State.

2. The present application has been filed by the

petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for

quashing of the entire proceeding initiated under Section 145

Cr.P.C., including the order dated 12.08.2017 passed by the

learned S.D.O., Udakishunganj, Madhepura in Misc. Case No.

505 of 2017, whereby the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48244 of 2017(8) dt.23-04-2026
2/11

was converted into under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the parties

were directed to file their written statements, documents, and

adduce evidence in support of their respective claims, despite

the admitted pendency of Title Suit No. 144 of 2008 before the

Court of learned Sub-Judge, Madhepura concerning the same

subject matter of dispute.

3. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the

record, are that a dispute arose between the parties with respect

to the land in question, which initially led to initiation of

proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a police

report apprehending breach of peace. The said proceeding,

being Case No. 917 of 2013, was dropped upon expiry of the

statutory period. Subsequently, at the instance of O.P. No. 2,

another proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated vide

Misc. Case No. 69 of 2016, wherein both parties appeared and

filed their respective show cause petitions. Upon consideration

of the materials placed on record, including documents relating

to title and possession, the learned S.D.O. vide order dated

19.03.2016 held the petitioners to be in possession over the

disputed land and vacated the order against them. It is further

the case of the petitioners that yet again, for the same subject

matter and between the same parties, another proceeding under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48244 of 2017(8) dt.23-04-2026
3/11

Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated being Misc. Case No. 505 of

2017, wherein both parties appeared and filed their show cause.

The petitioners reiterated their claim of title and possession and

also brought to the notice of the learned S.D.O. the pendency of

Title Suit No. 144 of 2008 before the competent civil Court.

However, without adverting to the said aspect, the learned

S.D.O. vide order dated 12.08.2017 converted the proceeding

under Section 144 Cr.P.C. into one under Section 145 Cr.P.C.,

which is under challenge in the present application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

impugned order dated 12.08.2017 passed by the learned S.D.O.,

Udakishunganj, converting the proceeding under Section 144

Cr.P.C. into one under Section 145 Cr.P.C., is wholly illegal,

arbitrary and without jurisdiction. He submits that for the very

same subject matter and between the same parties, earlier

proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had been initiated on

more than one occasion, and in the subsequent proceeding being

Misc. Case No. 69 of 2016, the learned S.D.O., upon due

consideration of the materials on record, had categorically found

the petitioners to be in possession over the disputed land. It is

further submitted that initiation of yet another proceeding

amounts to re-litigation of the same issue, which is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48244 of 2017(8) dt.23-04-2026
4/11

impermissible in law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that a Title Suit bearing No. 144 of 2008 with respect to the

same land is already pending before the competent civil Court,

wherein the issues relating to title and possession are directly

involved and are being adjudicated. It is submitted that in view

of the pendency of the civil suit, the continuation of the

proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is unwarranted and

amounts to parallel adjudication, which is an abuse of the

process of the Court. Learned counsel thus submits that the

impugned order as well as the entire proceeding deserve to be

quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned APP for

the State conceded that Title Suit bearing No. 144 of 2008 with

respect to the same land is already pending before the competent

civil Court and submits that the present case may be disposed of

accordingly.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as

well as learned APP for the State and on perusal of the materials

available on record, this Court finds that the scope of

interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is well settled. The

inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48244 of 2017(8) dt.23-04-2026
5/11

with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, to prevent

abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice.

It is equally settled that where the continuation of a criminal

proceeding amounts to misuse of the judicial process or where

the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and

instituted with ulterior motive, this Court would be justified in

exercising its inherent powers to quash the same.

8. At this stage, it is appropriate to mention that the

law is well settled with respect to proceedings under Section

145 Cr.P.C., as they are of a preventive nature and are intended

only to maintain public peace by determining actual possession

on the date of the preliminary order, without adjudicating upon

the rights and title of the parties. It is equally settled that where

a competent civil Court is already seized of the dispute relating

to title and possession of the same property, initiation or

continuation of parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

should ordinarily be avoided, particularly when there is no

imminent apprehension of breach of peace.

9. It is further a settled principle that the jurisdiction

under Sections 144 and 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked

repeatedly for the same cause of action once the matter has been

adjudicated, unless there is a fresh situation giving rise to a new
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48244 of 2017(8) dt.23-04-2026
6/11

apprehension of breach of peace. The Executive Magistrate is

required to record a clear and specific satisfaction regarding

such apprehension before initiating or converting the

proceedings. In absence of such satisfaction, the order would be

rendered without jurisdiction.

10. Moreover, it is a trite law that the inherent powers

of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to

prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends

of justice. Where the criminal proceeding is found to be

manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with an ulterior

motive, or where continuation of such proceeding would result

in miscarriage of justice, the High Court would be justified in

quashing the same.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri

Mahant v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in (1985) 1 SCC

427, has observed as under:

“2. …………..When a civil litigation is
pending for the property wherein the
question of possession is involved and has
been adjudicated, we see hardly any
justification for initiating a parallel criminal
proceeding under Section 145 of the Code.
There is no scope to doubt or dispute the
position that the decree of the civil court is
binding on the criminal court in a matter
like the one before us. Counsel for
Respondents 2-5 was not in a position to
challenge the proposition that parallel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48244 of 2017(8) dt.23-04-2026
7/11

proceedings should not be permitted to
continue and in the event of a decree of the
civil court, the criminal court should not be
allowed to invoke its jurisdiction
particularly when possession is being
examined by the civil court and parties are
in a position to approach the civil court for
interim orders such as injunction or
appointment of receiver for adequate
protection of the property during pendency
of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not
in the interest of the parties nor should
public time be allowed to be wasted over
meaningless litigation. We are, therefore,
satisfied that parallel proceedings should
not continue and the order of the learned
Magistrate should be quashed. We
accordingly allow the appeal and quash the
order of the learned Magistrate by which the
proceeding under Section 145 of the Code
has been initiated and the property in
dispute has been attached…………..”

12. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey and Anr., reported in

(2000) 4 SCC 440 has dealt with the view as held by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (supra), as

herein under:

“13. We are unable to accept the submission
that the principles laid down in Ram Sumer
case [(1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985 SCC (Cri)
98] would only apply if the civil court has
already adjudicated on the dispute regarding
the property and given a finding. In our view
Ram Sumer case [(1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985
SCC (Cri) 98] is laying down that
multiplicity of litigation should be avoided
as it is not in the interest of the parties and
public time would be wasted over
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48244 of 2017(8) dt.23-04-2026
8/11

meaningless litigation. On this principle it
has been held that when possession is being
examined by the civil court and parties are
in a position to approach the civil court for
adequate protection of the property during
the pendency of the dispute, the parallel
proceedings i.e. Section 145 proceedings
should not continue.
14. …………...We clarify that we are not
stating that in every case where a civil suit is
filed, Section 145 proceedings would never
lie. It is only in cases where civil suit is for
possession or for declaration of title in
respect of the same property and where
reliefs regarding protection of the property
concerned can be applied for and granted by
the civil court that proceedings under
Section 145 should not be allowed to
continue. This is because the civil court is
competent to decide the question of title as
well as possession between the parties and
the orders of the civil court would be binding
on the Magistrate.”

13. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd.

Abid and Ors. v. Ravi Naresh and Ors., reported in 2022 SCC

OnLine SC 2416 has observed with respect to the proceeding

under Section 145 Cr.P.C. as under:

“4. ……….Once the Civil Court is seized of
the matter, it goes without saying that the
proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C.
cannot proceed and must come to an end.
The inter-se rights of the parties regarding
title or possession are eventually to be
determined by the Civil Court.”

14. In the present case, upon consideration of the

materials on record, it transpires that the dispute between the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48244 of 2017(8) dt.23-04-2026
9/11

parties pertains to a specific parcel of land, which has been the

subject matter of repeated proceedings under Section 144

Cr.P.C. initiated at the instance of O.P. No. 2. It further appears

that in an earlier proceeding being Misc. Case No. 69 of 2016,

the learned S.D.O., after hearing both sides and considering the

documents brought on record, had recorded a finding with

respect to possession in favour of the present petitioners and the

said proceeding was accordingly concluded. Despite the same,

another proceeding for the very same land and between the

same parties was again initiated, which indicates a repetitive

invocation of the preventive jurisdiction of the Executive

Magistrate.

15. It is also not in dispute that a Title Suit bearing

No. 144 of 2008 is pending before the competent civil Court

with respect to the same property, wherein the question of title

and possession is directly in issue. In such circumstances,

initiation of successive proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

and conversion thereof into a proceeding under Section 145

Cr.P.C. appears to be unwarranted, particularly when the

competent civil Court is already seized of the matter.

16. Furthermore, from the impugned order, this Court

finds that there is no specific satisfaction recorded by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48244 of 2017(8) dt.23-04-2026
10/11

learned S.D.O. regarding the existence of a present and

imminent apprehension of breach of peace, which is a sine qua

non for initiation of proceedings under Sections 144 and 145

Cr.P.C.

17. In view of the facts and circumstances of the

present case and the settled legal position, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the impugned order dated 12.08.2017

and the consequent proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot

be sustained in the eyes of law. It is evident that for the same

subject matter and between the same parties, repeated

proceedings have been initiated without any fresh material

indicating imminent breach of peace. Further, the pendency of

Title Suit No. 144 of 2008 before the competent civil Court,

wherein the issue of title and possession is directly involved, has

not been properly appreciated by the learned S.D.O. The

impugned order thus reflects a mechanical exercise of

jurisdiction and results in abuse of the process of law,

warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent

powers.

18. Accordingly, the entire proceeding under Section

145 Cr.P.C., including the impugned order dated 12.08.2017

passed by the learned S.D.O., Udakishunganj, Madhepura in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48244 of 2017(8) dt.23-04-2026
11/11

Misc. Case No. 505 of 2017, is hereby quashed. However, it is

made clear that the parties shall be at liberty to agitate their

rights before the competent civil Court, and any observation

made herein shall not prejudice the merits of the pending civil

proceedings.

19. Resultantly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous

Application stands allowed.

20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

Court concerned forthwith for information and needful.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…