HEERA LAL ALIAS GABBAR SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3526 of 2026

                                                                   Reserved


Heera Lal Alias Gabbar Singh And 3 Others
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Sr. Advocate, Umesh Chandra Shukla,
                                Vikas Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ravesh Kumar Singh

Court No. - 88
                     HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Amit Daga, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Vikas
Tiwari, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Shri Shivnath Singh,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ravesh Kumar Singh, learned
Counsel for opposite party nos.3 to 5 and learned A.G.A. on behalf of the
State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 20.05.2026
passed by the City Magistrate, Mathura in Case No.2398 of 2025
(Yaduraj Singh Yadav vs. Heera Lal @ Gabbar and Others), under
Section 145 Cr.P.C., Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has attached the
disputed property under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. and directed the
Tehsildar, Sadar, to hand it over to an independent receiver, as there is a
grave danger of breach of peace between both the parties and the position
with regard to possession over the land in dispute is not clear.

4. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate for the revisionists that the
impugned order is illegal, unjustified and against the settled principles of
law. The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the evidence on
record correctly and has erred in attaching the disputed land bearing
Khasra No.67, situated at Mauja Vrindavan Bangar/Khadar, by showing
                                                        CRLR No. 3526 of 2026
                               2


the boundary marks of the revisionists' land bearing Khasra No. 67/5,
situated at Mauja Vrindavan Khadar. The City Magistrate was fully aware
that the dispute between the parties was still pending before the Court of
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura, in Original Suit No. 137 of 2026
(Sundar Vs. Yaduraj Singh) and in the said civil suit, the Civil Court,
Mathura, had directed the parties to maintain status quo over the property
in dispute vide order dated 03.02.2026. Despite the aforesaid injunction
order, the City Magistrate passed the impugned order of attachment under
Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., which is contrary to the settled principles of law.
The City Magistrate failed to consider the fact that the boundary marks of
the property, proposed to be attached was identical to the boundary marks
of the revisionists' property as mentioned in the plaint of Original Suit No.
137 of 2026. Prior thereto, pursuant to the order of the City Magistrate
dated 21.01.2026, a four-member team of Revenue Officials conducted a
spot inspection and submitted its report dated 03.02.2026, to the effect
that the disputed property is Khasra No. 67/5, situated at Mauja
Vrindavan Khadar. However, the City Magistrate, without considering the
aforesaid report, attached the property in question by recording that the
property in question is situated at Khasra No. 67, Mauja Vrindavan
Bangar/Khadar, and has shown the boundaries of the revisionists' land
bearing Khasra No. 67/5. Whereas both these properties are different and
situated adjacent to each other, and the concerned Magistrate has
intermingled both the properties by showing incorrect boundary marks.
As per the police report dated 25.05.2024, the disputed property is
occupied by the revisionists and their family members, and their houses
are situated thereon. Therefore, there was no likelihood of breach of
peace. It is also submitted that, in the sale deed pertaining to the land
purchased by Yaduraj Singh Yadav and his wife, Veena Yadav, the place
where the land is situated is not disclosed. It is further submitted that the
inquiry report relates to land bearing Khasra No.67, with which the
revisionists have no concern, as they are the recorded owners and are in
possession of land bearing Khasra No.67/5. It is also submitted that, in the
said inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer has not determined or identified
any permanent point or boundary and has, therefore, submitted a biased
and misconceived inquiry report. Hence, the impugned order is liable to
be set aside.
                                                        CRLR No. 3526 of 2026
                               3


5. Learned Senior Advocate for the revisionists has relied upon a decision
of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.
No.8563 of 2019 (Narendra Singh vs. State of U.P. And others), in
which, it has been held that if a judgment is challenged in revision or
appeal before Constitutional Law Courts, such Courts should have to
ensure that things are set right and the emphasis should be laid on core
issues to be resolved through judicial process. A jurisdictional error, no
doubt, goes to the root of the matter but when it is only at interlocutory
stage either in appeal or in revision, the matter can always be remitted to
the original court hearing the main matter balancing the equity between
the parties.

6. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate, for the private opposite parties has
submitted that the revisionists have not approached this Court with clean
hands and that their claim over the disputed property is totally based on
forged and fabricated documents. The revisionists are land grabbers and
the same has also been stated in the inquiry report submitted by the
Deputy Collector, Mathura. Radharaman and others have prepared forged
documents and staked their claim over the property in dispute. In this
regard, an F.I.R. was lodged by one Bihari Lal in the year 2012, in which
charge-sheet has been filed and that criminal case has been pending since
then. The revisionists filed frivolous Civil Suit No.922 of 2008 to grab the
land of Swami Dharam Dev and Shiv Kumar Agarwal and after taking a
huge amount of money, withdrew the suit. The claim of the revisionists is
based on false and forged documents and, therefore, they are not entitled
to any relief.

7. In the inquiry report dated 17.09.2019, it was found that the names of
the revisionists were mutated in the revenue records on the basis of forged
documents and the revisionists had forcibly occupied the land by putting
up a tin shed during the pendency of these proceedings. It is also
submitted that the land bearing Khasra No.67/5, Mauja Vrindavan
Khadar, has already been acquired for the Parikrama Marg. It is next
submitted that the order, dated 04.02.2020, passed by the City Magistrate
has already been set aside in the revision filed by Yaduraj Singh vide
order dated 14.06.2024 and the case was remanded to the Trial Court. The
revisionists filed an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. against the
                                                        CRLR No. 3526 of 2026
                               4


said order, which was dismissed as not pressed. It is further submitted that
the report dated 25.05.2024 was procured by the revisionists in collusion
with the police. The revisionists filed Civil Suit No. 137 of 2026, during
the pendency of the application filed by them before this Court under
Section 528 B.N.S.S., and the Civil Court, without issuing notice to the
defendants, granted an interim injunction vide order dated 03.02.2026.
The civil suit is based on misrepresentation of facts. Hence, the revision
has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned Senior Advocate for private opposite parties has relied upon
the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: M/s Prestige
Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, reported in AIR 2007 SCW 5350;
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1;
A.V. Papayya Sastry & Others v. Government of Arunachal Pradesh &
Others, passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5097-5099 of 2004, decided on
07.03.2007; and Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & Others,
reported in AIR Online 2012 SC 383.

9. The law propounded in the aforesaid decisions is that, under Section
146 Cr.P.C., a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether an
emergency exists before passing an order of attachment. A case of
emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 Cr.P.C., has to be
distinguished from a mere apprehension of breach of peace. The
Magistrate, before passing an order under Section 146 Cr.P.C., must
explain the circumstances as to why he considers it to be a case of
emergency. In other words, to infer a situation of emergency, there must
be material on record before the Magistrate, including the submissions of
the parties, documents produced and evidence adduced. The ingredients
necessary for passing an order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. would not
automatically attract the attachment of the property. It is also held that
one who comes to the Court must come with clean hands and a person
whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to seek relief and can be
summarily denied relief at any stage of the litigation. A Court of law is
also a Court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that when a
party approaches the High Court, he must place all the facts before the
Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on
the part of the applicant or incorrect facts have been placed before the
                                                          CRLR No. 3526 of 2026
                                5


Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it
without entering into the merits of the matter.

10. Learned A.G.A. submits that the impugned order is perfectly justified
and suffers from no illegality or infirmity. Therefore, the present revision
has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

11. Considering the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of
the record and impugned order, it is clear that the Magistrate passed the
impugned order of attachment of disputed property, under Section 146(1)
Cr.P.C., on the ground that an emergency exists, the possession of either
party over the disputed property is not clear, and there is a grave
apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. Therefore, in order
to maintain peace, the disputed property has been attached. It is also not
in dispute that the civil suit was pending and the interim injunction order
was passed prior to the impugned order.

12. Both the parties are claiming their rights over the disputed property.
The revisionists claim that the disputed land bears Khasra No. 67/5,
situated in Mauja Virndavan Khadar, whereas the Magistrate has attached
the property bearing Khasra No. 67, situated at Mauja Vrindavan
Bangar/Khadar, by showing the boundaries of the revisionists' land.
Therefore, the case of the revisionists is that their property bearing Khasra
No. 67/5 has, in fact, been attached by the impugned order. It is also
stated that both the properties are adjacent to each other.

13. Learned Senior Advocate for the revisionists also submitted that,
pursuant to the direction of the concerned Magistrate, the Revenue
Officials conducted a spot inspection and submitted a report dated
03.02.2026, stating that the disputed property is Khasra No. 67/5.
However, the Magistrate ignored the said report and attached the property
of the revisionists. It is also submitted that the revisionists had filed Civil
Suit No. 137 of 2026 with regard to the disputed property bearing Khasra
No. 67/5, wherein the Civil Court, vide order dated 03.02.2026, prima
facie found the plaintiffs to be in possession and directed both the parties
to maintain status quo.

14. It is submitted that the pendency of the civil suit and the grant of the
                                                         CRLR No. 3526 of 2026
                                6


status quo order by the civil court, were well within the knowledge of the
Executive Magistrate at the time impugned order was passed. This is
evident from the order itself, wherein it has been mentioned that, with
regard to the disputed property, revisionist No.3 had filed Civil Suit No.
137 of 2026 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura, in which
the court had passed an order for maintaining status quo on 03.02.2026.
Therefore, when the civil suit was already pending and the civil court had
already granted an order for maintaining status quo, the proceedings
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable, and it is the civil court
which has to finally adjudicate the rights of the parties in the pending suit.

15. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate for the private opposite
parties has submitted that the claim of the revisionists is based on false
and forged documents. It is submitted that the revisionists filed a civil suit
during the pendency of their application under Section 528 BNSS before
this Court. It is further submitted that the civil court, without issuing
notice to the private opposite parties, i.e., opposite party Nos.3 to 5,
granted an interim injunction and the said suit was based on
misrepresentation of facts. It is also submitted that the revisionists are
land grabbers and are trying to grab the property of opposite party Nos.3
to 5.

16. The submissions on behalf of private opposite parties has no force.
Filing of a civil suit, during the pendency of an application under Section
528 BNSS, is not barred. So far as the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by
the civil court is concerned, whereby an interim injunction was granted in
favour of the revisionists of the present proceedings, the concerned civil
court was well within its jurisdiction to pass an ex parte injunction order.
Whether the claim of the revisionists is based on false and forged
documents or whether they have committed any misrepresentation of
facts before the civil court are matters to be considered and decided by the
civil court itself, provided any such issue is raised before it. It is settled
law that in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the rights of the parties
cannot be adjudicated, and such proceedings are merely initiated to
prevent breach of peace until the rights of the parties are decided by the
competent court.

17. A perusal of the impugned order and the copy of the plaint filed by the
                                                        CRLR No. 3526 of 2026
                               7


revisionists shows that the boundaries are the same in the suit which is
filed before the civil court and also in the impugned order, by which the
disputed property has been attached. It appears that the identity of the
disputed land is not in question but the dispute is whether the disputed
land is situated at Khasra No. 67 or at Khasra No. 67/5, as alleged by the
contesting parties. It is not in dispute that, before the impugned order was
passed, the civil suit was pending and the civil court had passed an
interim stay order. It is the civil court, which would decide whether the
disputed land is situated at Khasra No. 67 or at Khasra No. 67/5.
Therefore, the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. does not deserve to
be continued.

18. With regard to similar kind of matter a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 9198 of 2021 (Aman Deep
Singh Shishya Vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 20.12.2023,
found that, at the time of passing of the preliminary order under Section
145(1) Cr.P.C., an interim order was in existence and the civil suit was
pending. The civil court had also found possession of the plaintiff over
the property in question. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the Court
held that there was no justification for keeping the parties embroiled in
parallel criminal proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C., while
relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and Another, reported in (2000)
4 SCC 440. The relevant paragraphs in Amresh Tiwari (supra), are quoted
hereinbelow:-

      "12. The question then is whether there is any infirmity in the order
      of the SDM discontinuing the proceedings under Section 145 of the
      Criminal Procedure Code. The law on this subject-matter has been
      settled by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri
      Mahant v. State of U.P. [(1985) 1 SCC 427: 1985 SCC (Cri) 98] In
      this case it has been held as follows:

      "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
                                                   CRLR No. 3526 of 2026
                          8


that 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."

"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
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. Reliance has been placed on the case of Jhummamal v. State
of M.P. [(1988) 4 SCC 452 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 974] It is submitted
that this authority lays down that merely because a civil suit is
pending does not mean that proceedings under Section 145 of the
Criminal Procedure Code should be set at naught. In our view this
authority does not lay down any such broad proposition. In this
case the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure
Code had resulted in a concluded order. Thereafter the party, who
had lost, filed civil proceedings. After filing the civil proceedings he
prayed that the final order passed in the Section 145 proceedings
be quashed. It is in that context that this Court held that merely
because a civil suit had been filed did not mean that the concluded
order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be
quashed. This is entirely a different situation. In this case the civil
suit had been filed first. An order of status quo had already been
passed by the competent civil court. Thereafter Section 145
proceedings were commenced. No final order had been passed in
the proceedings under Section 145. In our view on the facts of the
present case the ratio laid down in Ram Sumer case [(1985) 1 SCC
427 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 98] fully applies. 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
                                                                                            CRLR No. 3526 of 2026
                                                                    9


                                           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."

                                    19. In view of the above legal position, the impugned order of attachment
                                    of the disputed property is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the
                                    revision is allowed, and the impugned order dated 20.05.2026 passed by
                                    the City Magistrate, Mathura, in Case No. 2398 of 2025 under Section
                                    146(1) Cr.P.C. is set aside.

                                    20. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed.


                                                                                             (Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Amit




Digitally signed by :-
AMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad