THOGYA RUPA VALVI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:8452



                                                 1
                                                                   540.23CWP

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          944 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.540 OF 2023

                    1]    Thogya Rupa Valvi
                          Age: Adult, Occu : Agriculture

                    2]    Imra Rupa Valvi
                          Age: Adult, Occu : Agriculture

                    3]    Bablya Ditya Valvi
                          Age: Adult, Occu : Agriculture

                    4]    Vasant Irma Valvi
                          Age: Adult, Occu : Agriculture

                          All R/o. Nandalwad Tq. Akrani,
                          Dist. Nandurbar.                 .. PETITIONERS

                                 VERSUS

                    1]    The State of Maharashtra
                          Through Tahsildar, Akrani
                          Tq. Akrani, Dist. Nandurbar.

                    2]    Diwtya Satya Valavi,
                          Age: 60 years, Occu : Agri

                    3]    Bhamtya Satya Valavi
                          Age: 58 years, Occu : Agri

                    4]    Selya Satya Valavi
                          Age: 60 years, Occu : Agri

                    5]    Dewlya Satya Valavi
                          Age: 54 years, Occu : Agri

                    6]    Kella Gonya Valavi
                          Age: 60 years Occu : Agri
                              2
                                                  540.23CWP


7]    Deka Saya Valvi
      Age: 45 years, Occu : Agriculture

8]    Dilip Bhamta Valvi
      Age : 32 years, Occu : Agriculture

      All R/o. Nandalwad, Tq. Akrani
      Dist. Nandurbar.               .. RESPONDENTS

                              ...
     Advocate for the petitioners : Mr.Syed Azizoddin R.
          APP for Respondent-State : Mr.P.D.Patil
                              …

                        CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
                        DATE      : 17.02.2026

ORDER :


1]          The petitioners have filed the present Writ

Petition thereby praying for quashing and setting aside the

order dated 29.1.2021 passed in Criminal Revision

Application No.16/2018, whereby the order passed by the

Tahsildar, Akrani in a proceeding initiated under Section

145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the instance of

the Officer incharge of Dhadgaon Police Station, came to be

quashed and set aside thereby holding that the respondents

herein are in possession of the disputed land bearing Survey
                              3
                                                   540.23CWP

No. 44 area 4.29 Hectors and Survey No.48 area 3.13

Hectors.


2]          The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the revision against an order passed in exercise of

powers under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure is

not maintainable.


3]          The learned APP strongly opposed the said

submission on the ground that the order passed under

Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure finally decides

the right of the parties and is not an interlocutory order and

as such revision under Section 397 of the Criminal

Procedure Code is maintainable.


4]          I have gone through the impugned order dated

29.11.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Shahada in Criminal Revision No.16/2018. The learned

Revisional Court has considered in detail objections raised

by the respondents to the proceedings under Section 145 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated at the behest of the
                                4
                                                    540.23CWP

Police Officer particularly when the petitioners herein have

already filed Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2017 for partition

before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Dhadgaon.

The Executive Magistrate / Tahsildar, Dhadgaon, thus,

ought not to have passed the impugned order under Section

145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of pendency of

the said suit between the parties.


5]             The learned Revisional Court has further relied

upon the provisions of Section 145 of the Criminal

Procedure Code and has come to the conclusion that in view

of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 145 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, the concerned Magistrate shall

not go into merits or the claims of any of the parties to

possess the disputed property and is required only to decide

as to which party was in possession of the subject of the

dispute on the date of the order made by him under sub-

Section (1).


6]             Perusal of the order passed by the Tahsildar,

Akrani would show that the Tahsildar, Akrani had found the
                               5
                                                    540.23CWP

petitioners to be in possession only on the ground that they

are entitled for obtaining possession of the said agricultural

land and accordingly passed the impugned order under

Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code by restraining the

petitioners herein from causing any obstruction to the

petitioners herein in its possession over the said agricultural

lands until the said party is evicted lawfully. No reasoning

stated in the impugned order as to how the Tahsildar has

reached to a conclusion that the petitioners herein were in

possession of the said land. From the record it could be seen

that the respondents were in cultivating possession of the

agricultural land Survey Nos. 44 and 48 since as long back

as on 26.12.1939 through their ancestor Satya Kakdya Bhil

(the father of respondent nos.2 to 5 and grand father of

respondent nos. 6 to 8] and after his death on 16.05.1971,

the respondent nos. 2 to 8 succeeded to the said agricultural

lands and are in cultivating possession thereof. Thus, after

taking into consideration the fact that there is already civil

suit filed for partition and the same is pending before the

Civil Court at Dhadgaon in respect of the said agricultural
                                  6
                                                          540.23CWP

land, the findings arrived at by the learned Tahsildar merely

on the basis of entitlement of the petitioners herein to be in

possession of the land on the date of passing of the order

was rightly set aside by the learned Revisional Court.


7]          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of in

case of M. Siddique Vs. Mahant Suresh Das, reported in

(2020) 1 SCC 1 observed as under:-


            299. Where a suit is instituted for possession or for
            declaration of title before a competent civil court, the
            proceedings under Section 145 should not continue. This
            Court has analysed the above proposition of law in the
            following cases:


            299.1. In Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey , (2000) 4
            SCC 440, S.N. Variava, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench
            of this Court held thus :


                   “12. … The law on this subject-matter has been
                   settled by the decision of this Court in Ram Sumer
                   PuriMahant v. State of U.P (1985) 1 SCC 427. In
                   this case it has been held as follows :


                   ‘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
                       7
                                                 540.23CWP

         court in a matter like the one before us. … parallel
         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….’ ”

299.2. The Court in Amresh Tiwari [Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta
Prasad Dubey, (2000) 4 SCC 440 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 806]
rejected the submission that the principle in Ram Sumer
PuriMahant v. State of U.P. [Ram Sumer PuriMahant v.
State of U.P., (1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 98] will
apply only after the civil court has adjudicated on the
issue:
         “13. We are unable to accept the submission that
         the principles laid down in Ram Sumer case [Ram
         Sumer PuriMahant v. State of U.P., (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 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 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.”
                               8
                                                    540.23CWP




            Thus, in view of pendency of the civil suit

between the petitioners and the respondents, particularly

taking into consideration the fact that the civil suit is filed

by the petitioners seeking partition and separate possession,

the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure

Code was not maintainable. The findings arrived at by the

learned Revisional Court does not call for any interference

of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction under Section

227 of the Constitution of India.


8]          The other ground raised by the petitioner for

interference in the impugned order is that revision under

Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the

order passed by the Magistrate, exercising powers under

Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not

maintainable. The provisions of Section 397 (2) of Criminal

Procedure Code would clearly show that the only

prohibition for entertaining revision under Section 397 of

the Criminal Procedure Code is in relation to the
                              9
                                                   540.23CWP

interlocutory order passed in any other appeal, inquiry, trial

or other proceedings. The revision filed under Section 397

(1) of Criminal Procedure Code by the respondent herein

was against the final order passed under Section 145 of the

Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Magistrate. The

said prohibition under Section 397 (2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code against filing of the revision would

therefore not apply in the present case. The order under

Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a final order,

deciding as to who was in possession on the date of passing

of the order and after such decision, the entire proceedings

terminates. Thus, in my opinion the order under Section

145 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be said to be an

interlocutory order for the purposes of the bar under section

397 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code . The ground raised

by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, therefore,

misconceived and liable to be rejected.


            The Criminal Writ Petition is, therefore, devoid

of merits and liable to be dismissed. Hence, the present Writ
                                10
                                                  540.23CWP

Petition is hereby dismissed.


9]          The observations by this Court are prima facie

made with an intention to decide the present Criminal Writ

Petition against the proceedings initiated under Section 145

of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Police Station Officer

and the same shall not influence any other proceedings

pending before any other Court.



                                     [MEHROZ K. PATHAN]
                                           JUDGE
DDC