SURYAKANT GURULINGAPPA KALSHETTI AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                              38-WP-2047-2025 (CR).docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2047 OF 2025

  1. Suryakant Gurulingappa Kalshetti                          ]
          Age : 76 Years, Occupation : Agricultural            ]
  2. Lingraj Gurulingappa Kalshetti                            ]
          Age : 49 Years, Occupation : Agricultural            ]
          Both R/o. Wagdari, Tal. Akkalkot,                    ]
          District : Solapur.                                  ]    … Petitioners
                                Versus
  1. The State Of Maharashtra                                  ]
      2   Police Inspector                                     ]
          Akkalkot North Police Station, Akkalkot,             ]
          Tal. Akkalkot, District Solapur                      ]
  3. Mahesh Vijaykumar Kalshetti                               ]
          Age : 32 Years, Occupation : Service                 ]
          R/o. Wagdari, Tal. Akkalkot,                         ]
          District : Solapur.                                  ]    … Respondents


                                       ——————
         Mr. Rahul P. Kasbekar for the Petitioners.
         Dr. A.A. Takalkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State.
         Mr. Balasaheb Ligade (Through V.C.) for the Respondent No.3.

                                     ——————

                                     Coram :       MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

                                     Date      :   7th July 2026.


osk                                   1 of 7
                                                        38-WP-2047-2025 (CR).docx




ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.    The Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated

13/03/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in

Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2023, whereby the learned

Revisional Court has dismissed the Revision filed against the order dated

02/03/2023 passed by the Tahsildar under Section 145 of the Criminal

Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) proceedings, whereby the proceedings were closed

in view of the filing of a civil suit between the parties, however the Tahsildar

had restrained the Petitioners i.e. Suryakant Kalshetti and Lingraj Kalshetti

herein from interfering into the possession of the Respondent No.3– Mahesh

Kalshetti herein.

2.    Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the learned Tahsildar

had committed an error apparent on the face of record whereby the Section

145 of CrPC proceedings are closed in view of the filing of the civil suit,

however still the learned Tahsildar has usurped the jurisdiction of the civil

Court and has injuncted the Petitioners herein from interfering the possession

of Respondent No.3 - Mahesh Kalshetti. The said order was therefore illegal

and was challenged by the Petitioners herein before the Revisional Court by

filing the Revision being Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2023. The

Revisional Court even though had recorded a finding that the learned



osk                               2 of 7
                                                       38-WP-2047-2025 (CR).docx


Tahsildar could not have injuncted the Petitioners from disturbing the

possession after having dismissed the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC

in view of the alternate remedy by filing a civil suit, which was already

availed by the parties, had gone ahead to dismiss the revision without any

cogent reasons.   Learned counsel therefore submits that both the Courts

below have failed to apply their mind to the facts of the present case and as

such the same has resulted in to the miscarriage of the justice. Therefore, the

impugned orders are unjust, illegal and without any jurisdiction. The

jurisdiction to grant stay and injunction from interfering the possession of

any person would lies with the civil Court and not with the revenue Court.

The proceedings undertaken under Section 145 of the CrPC are limited in

nature and pertains only to an inquiry into the question of possession of the

property. The Revenue Authorities does not have any power to grant

permanent or temporary injunction to the parties from interfering in the

possession.   Since the learned Revenue Court has already recorded its

reasoning that the parties have approached the civil Court, the learned

Tahsildar ought to have refrained from exercising its jurisdiction usurping the

jurisdiction of the civil Court in injuncting the Petitioners herein from

disturbing the possession.    The learned trial Court so also the learned

revisional Court have failed to apply its mind, which has resulted in

miscarriage of justice. The Petition may therefore be allowed by setting aside


osk                               3 of 7
                                                      38-WP-2047-2025 (CR).docx


the order.

3.    As against this, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 Mr. Ligade

strongly opposed the Petition on the ground that there is a clear cut finding

recorded by the learned Tahsildar pertaining to the possession of the present

Respondent No.3, which is reported in two reports referred to in the order

dated 02/03/2023.      The Tahsildar though had closed the proceedings,

however has recorded that the Respondent No.3 was found to be in

possession of the agricultural lands 438/1, 438/7 and 467/6. The learned

Tahsildar after having come to a conclusion that the Respondent No.3 was in

peaceful possession of the said premises found that the Petitioners have

indulged into disturbing the possession of the Respondent No.3. As such,

learned Tahsildar has rightly restrained the Petitioners from disturbing the

possession of the Respondent No.3. The provisions under Section 145 (6)(a)

of CrPC would also provide the necessary powers to the Tahsildar, to restore

the possession of the parties, who was forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.

4.    Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 therefore submits that since

the learned Tahsildar possesses the power to forbidding all disturbance of

such possession until such eviction, the learned Tahsildar has rightly

exercised its jurisdiction vested under Section 145 (6)(a) of CrPC.       The

impugned order was challenged before the learned Revisional Court, the

learned Revisional Court has also apprised itself about the provisions of


osk                              4 of 7
                                                        38-WP-2047-2025 (CR).docx


Section 145 (6)(a) of CrPC and found that the learned Tahsildar has rightly

exercised the power and restrained the Petitioners from disturbing the

possession of the Respondent No.3. There is no error committed either by the

learned Tahsildar or by the learned Revisional Court and as such, the Petition

is devoid of any substance and merits and is liable to be rejected.

5.    Section 145 (6)(a) of CrPC, which reads thus :

      “Section 145(6)(a): If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties
      was, or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated as
      being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order
      declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted
      therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such
      possession until such eviction; and when he proceeds under the
      proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly
      and wrongfully dispossessed.”


6.    In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, viz. Mohd.

Shakir Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in [2022 Live Law (SC) 727], it has

been held that during pendency of civil suit qua property in question, while

dropping the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., there is no justification

for the learned Magistrate to record any finding or issue any interim

direction.    The Magistrate ought to have left all the relevant aspects for

consideration of the competent civil court, without recoding any finding in

the matter.



osk                               5 of 7
                                                      38-WP-2047-2025 (CR).docx


7.    The aforesaid provision no doubt specifically empowers the Tahsildar

to forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction, however

the same has to be necessarily followed after an order declaring such party to

be entitled to possession thereof before and after receiving a report from the

Police Officer as provided under Section 145(1) of CrPC. In the present case,

though the reports were already called under Section 145(1) of CrPC from

the Police about the possession of the disputed agricultural lands, however

the Tahsildar had not declared such party to be entitled to possession until

evicted in due course of law, instead the Tahsildar has chosen a unique

procedure to be adopted by declaring the proceedings as closed in view of the

pendency of the civil suit between the parties and has thereafter gone ahead

to restrain the Petitioners from disturbing the possession of the Respondent

No.3. This act on the part of the Tahsildar, in my opinion is dehors the

provisions of Section 145 (6)(a) of CrPC. The Tahsildar having come to a

conclusion that the parties are already pursuing their civil remedies ought to

have simply closed the proceedings.       The said order of the Tahsildar

injuncting the Petitioners from restraining the possession of Respondent No.3

therefore in my view appears to be an exercise of exceeding its jurisdiction

under Section 145 of CrPC. Learned Revisional Court has also failed to apply

its mind to the error apparent on the face of record and has wrongly

dismissed the revision. In my view, therefore both the impugned orders are


osk                              6 of 7
                                                      38-WP-2047-2025 (CR).docx


liable to be quashed and set-aside. Hence, the following Order :

                                            ORDER
        (i)    The Writ Petition is allowed.
        (ii)   The impugned order dated 02/03/2023 passed by the Tahsildar
               in proceedings No.2018/MAG/SR/02 and the order dated
               13/03/2025 passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal
               Revision Application No. 26 of 2023 are hereby quashed and
               set-aside.
        (iii) The parties shall get their rights decided in the pending civil
               suits.


8.    Needless to mention that this Court has not considered the merits of

the matter about the possession of the property in dispute. The issue of

possession and injunction shall be decided in the proceedings pending before

the Civil Court.



                                       [ MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. ]




osk                                7 of 7