Bombay High Court

LALITA PRABHAKAR SANGAWAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided: 30 April 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

The High Court disposed the writ petition, directing that the temporary injunction application be decided by the civil court and restraining the respondents from further precipitative action.

Summary

The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of a sale deed and an interim injunction concerning a disputed immovable property. During the suit, the police prompted an Executive Magistrate to act under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to a criminal revision that was later set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners challenged the Sessions Judge’s order via a writ petition, arguing that the criminal proceedings interfered with the pending civil matters. The High Court held that all substantive issues, including the temporary injunction, should be decided by the civil court and ordered that the respondents refrain from any further precipitative action until the civil application is heard. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without further interference.

Issues considered

Whether the order of the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 CrPC can be set aside in view of the pending civil suit.
Whether the civil court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the application for temporary injunction despite the criminal proceedings.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 145

Subjects

specific performance
temporary injunction
Section 145 CrPC
civil jurisdiction
criminal revision
property dispute
writ petition

Judgment

                                                                             27-WP-2028-2026.DOC



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 2028 OF 2026


                      Lalita Prabhakar Sangawar and Anr                            ..Petitioners
                             Versus
                      State of Maharashtra and Ors                           …Respondents

                      Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, with Onkar Somvanshi, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. P. P. Malshe, APP, for Respondent No.1.
                      Mr. Sujay H Gangal, with Harshal N Mule, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7.

                                                  CORAM:         N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                  DATE :         30th APRIL 2026



                      ORAL ORDER:




ARUN
                      1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL

Digitally signed by
ARUN
                      2.    The Challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 24th March
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.05.01
13:21:35 +0530
                      2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in

                      Criminal Revision Application No. 169 of 2025, whereby the Criminal

                      Revision Application preferred by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein, was

                      allowed and the order passed by the Executive Magistrate on 4 th March

                      2025 in case No. 1 of 2024 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal

                      Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) was set aside.




                      ARS                                  1/3
                                                       27-WP-2028-2026.DOC

3.    The Petitioners have instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 694 of 2023

seeking a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale of the

immovable property and the consequential reliefs of injunction. In the

said Suit the Petitioners have also prayed for grant of interim reliefs by

filing an Application for temporary injunction.

4.    It seems that during the pendency of the said Suit, in view of the

reports lodged with the police, at the instance of the police, the

Executive Magistrate has initiated action under Section 145 of the Code.

5.    It appears consequent to the impugned order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, certain developments have occurred. However,

the parties are at issue over the exact position as to the possession of

the parties over the disputed property.

6.    Since the Civil Suit is pending and in the said Suit an application

for temporary injunction awaits adjudication, all the contentious issues

can be legitimately and effectively decided by the Civil Court. Hence, it

would be appropriate that the said Application for temporary injunction

is decided by the Civil Court expeditiously.

7.    The learned Judge shall, however, decide the said Application on

its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by

the observations in the impugned order as well as the subsequent order

dated 30th March 2026 passed by the learned Sessions on an Application




ARS                                   2/3
                                                      27-WP-2028-2026.DOC

for stay and also the order dated 4 th March 2025 passed by the

Executive Magistrate which was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge.

8.    Till the learned Civil Judge decides the Application for temporary

injunction, Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 shall not take further precipitative

action.

9.    Petition disposed.

                                           [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                  3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…