Allahabad High Court

KUSUM LATA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: SANJIV KUMAR

Holding

The Court held that where the civil court has not passed an effective interim order protecting the property, the magistrate may lawfully continue proceedings under Section 145 CrPC and the attachment order is valid.

Summary

The revisionists challenged two orders of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate who, on the basis of police and revenue reports indicating a dispute and apprehension of breach of peace, attached agricultural land and refused to drop proceedings under Section 145 CrPC. The revisionists argued that a civil suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed and an injunction was already pending, making the criminal proceedings impermissible. The State and opposite party contended that the civil suit had not yielded any interim protective order, so the magistrate was justified in exercising his powers under Section 145/146 CrPC. The Court examined precedents, noting that parallel criminal proceedings are permissible when the civil court has not granted an effective interim relief to protect the property. It held that, in the absence of such an order, the magistrate’s attachment of the property was lawful and the order rejecting the application to drop the proceedings was merely interlocutory. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether proceedings under Section 145/146 of the Criminal Procedure Code can continue when a civil suit concerning the same property is pending.
Whether the magistrate was justified in attaching the disputed property in view of the apprehension of breach of peace despite the pendency of the civil suit.
Whether the order rejecting the application to drop the Section 145 proceedings is an interlocutory order that can be interfered with.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 107, 116, 145, 146(1)

Subjects

Section 145 CrPC
parallel civil and criminal proceedings
attachment of property
breach of peace
interim injunction
multiplicity of litigation
civil suit pendency

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7823 of 2025

Reserved

Kusum Lata And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Om Prakash Mishra, Suraj Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Kumar Mishra, G.A., Pooja
Singh, Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Rajesh
Yadav

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

1. Heard Shri Om Prakash Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Shri
Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.3 and
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against order dated 23.12.2024
(under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C.) as well as order dated 30.12.2016, (under
Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C.), both passed by the Deputy Collector Tehsil,
Dhampur, Police Station Sherkot, District Bijnor in Case No. 05532 of 2018
(Pradyumn Kumar vs. Anirudh).

3. By the impugned order dated 23.12.2024, the learned Magistrate rejected
the application filed by revisionist No.2 to drop the proceedings, and granted
him an opportunity to file his objections. By impugned order dated
30.12.2016, the learned Magistrate attached the disputed property and
directed to hand over its supurdgi to an independent person.

4. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No.3 filed an application,
dated 21.12.2016, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhampur, alleging
that the disputed land, bearing Khasra No. 86 area 1.287 hectares and
Khasra No. 53 area 1.068 hectares, is his ancestral property and that his
father, Banwari Singh was the owner and in possession of the aforesaid land.
CRLR No. 7823 of 2025
2

During his lifetime, he partitioned the property between his two sons,
namely, revisionist No.2, Anirudh and opposite party No.3, Pradyumn
Kumar. It was further alleged that revisionist No.2, Anirudh committed
fraud and on the basis of forged documents, got a sale deed executed in
favour of his wife, against which the opposite party No.3 has filed a suit
before the civil court for cancellation of the sale deed. It was further alleged
that revisionist No.2 was dishonestly trying to take possession of the
disputed land. It was, therefore, prayed that, after conducting an inquiry, the
disputed property be attached and its possession be handed over to some
independent person. Upon the said application, the police of the concerned
Police Station, under direction of the Magistrate concerned, submitted a
report stating that there was dispute between the parties over the disputed
land and there was an apprehension of breach of peace.

5. The police report dated 24.12.2016 disclosed that both the parties were
quarreling over the possession of the disputed land and, in this regard, both
parties sustained injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons, for which
criminal cases were lodged against them. It was also reported that there was
an apprehension of breach of peace. Proceedings under Sections 107/116
Cr.P.C. had earlier been initiated against both parties and, on 02.11.2016,
both parties were again challaned under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C., however,
the conditions were violated by them. It was, therefore, reported that the
property was liable to be attached and handed over to a receiver.

6. The Naib Tehsildar also submitted his report dated 29.12.2016, stating
that both the parties are real brothers. It is alleged that a forged sale deed was
executed by revisionist No.2, Anirudh in favour of his wife, regarding which
a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed is pending. Revisionist No. 2,
Anirudh, is trying to take possession of the disputed property on the basis of
the said sale deed. In this regard, both the parties quarreled with each other,
resulting in the registration of criminal cases. There is tension between the
parties regarding the disputed land, and there is an apprehension of breach of
peace at any time.

7. Upon receiving the reports from the Police and the Naib Tehsildar,
Dhampur, the concerned Magistrate passed a preliminary order under
Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. on 30.12.2016 and attached the disputed property.
CRLR No. 7823 of 2025
3

8. The revisionist filed an application, dated 06.01.2017, stating that the
impugned order was defective, as the reports of the Naib Tehsildar as well as
the concerned Police disclosed that cases were pending before the Civil
Court and the Revenue Court with regard to the disputed land. It was stated
that it is settled law that where matter relating to the disputed property are
pending before the Civil or Revenue Court, proceedings under Section 145
Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. It was further stated that there was no
apprehension of breach of peace and, therefore, the proceedings were liable
to be quashed. The concerned Magistrate thereafter passed impugned order
dated 23.12.2024, whereby he rejected the application dated 6.1.2017, filed
by revisionist No.2/Anirudh, and granted him an opportunity to file his
objections.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that both the
impugned orders dated 23.12.2014 (rejecting his application to drop the
proceeding) and order dated 30.12.2016, passed under Section 146 (1)
Cr.P.C (regarding attachment of disputed property) are illegal and arbitrary.
The dispute is sub judice before the competent civil court, as opposite party
No.3 had already filed a Civil Suit No. 1138 of 2016 on 29.11.2016 before
the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagina and as he could not obtain any
interim order from the court concerned, he got initiated this proceedings to
harass the revisionists. It is also submitted that opposite party No.3 has not
disclosed the filing of the civil suit, in proceedings under Sections 145/146
Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that parallel proceedings before the civil and
criminal courts cannot continue in respect of the same cause of action. The
rights, title and interest of the parties, over the property in dispute are to be
adjudicated by the civil court, therefore, there was no justification for
initiating proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted
that the revisionists were in possession of the land in dispute, till the date of
its attachment. Hence, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the decision of 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, wherein it was 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
CRLR No. 7823 of 2025
4

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
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.
CRLR No. 7823 of 2025
5

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 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."

11. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No.3, as well as learned
A.G.A. for the State have opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. There is no bar against the
continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. during the
pendency of a civil suit. It is further submitted that proceedings under
Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. were initiated upon apprehension of breach of
peace, and, for this purpose, the learned Magistrate is only required to
ascertain the settled possession of the parties.

12. Learned Counsel for opposite party No.3 has relied upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey
and Another, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 440, as well as the decision of a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.1848 of 2010;
Pawan Singhania Vs. State of U.P. and Others, decided on 16.03.2023. In
Pawan Singhania (supra) it was ruled that, in view of decision of Supreme
CRLR No. 7823 of 2025
6

Court in Amresh Tiwari (supra), the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
cannot be dropped merely on the ground that one of the parties has
approached the civil court with regard to title or right to possession.

13. Learned A.G.A. has filed a compliance affidavit, annexing therewith a
report of the Naib Tehsildar, Dhampur, forwarded by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate concerned. On the basis thereof, it is submitted that due to
dispute with regard to possession between the parties over the disputed land,
there is an apprehension of breach of peace. Therefore, the learned
Magistrate, after considering the reports submitted by the Police and the
Naib Tehsildar and after being satisfied, passed impugned order for
attachment of property, which do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
Hence, the present revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

14. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and
upon perusal of the record, it is clear that the revisionists have challenged
two orders passed by the learned Magistrate in this revision. One order is
dated 23.12.2024, by which the learned Magistrate rejected the application
of the revisionists dated 06.01.2017, whereby they had prayed for dropping
the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. In this regard, it is material that
on 30.12.2016, the learned Executive Magistrate had passed two orders, one
order by which he had attached the disputed property and another one
directing both the parties to appear before the Court, on the date fixed, with
evidence regarding their possession over the disputed property.

15. The learned Magistrate observed that there was an apprehension of
breach of peace, as the revisionists had raised certain issues for dropping the
proceedings in their application dated 06.01.2017 and the learned Magistrate
had earlier directed both the parties to produce evidence regarding their
possession over the disputed property. Therefore, the rejection of the
application dated 06.01.2017 by the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 has
not finally decided any right between the parties. The learned Magistrate has
given an opportunity to the revisionists to file their objections with regard to
the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and after the evidence is
produced by both the parties, the learned Magistrate can dispose of the
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order dated
23.12.2024 is an interlocutory order, having not decided any rights of the
parties and the issue of dropping the proceedings is still open for
CRLR No. 7823 of 2025
7

consideration by the learned Magistrate after the evidence is filed by both
the parties. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court with the
impugned order dated 23.12.2024.

16. So far as the other impugned order dated 30.12.2016 is concerned, a
perusal of the same shows that, after receiving the reports from the Police
Station concerned and the Naib Tehsildar, the Magistrate concerned attached
the disputed property. The reports of the Police Station concerned and the
Naib Tehsildar disclose that there was tension between the parties with
regard to possession over the disputed land and that they had fought with
each other, causing injuries to the members of the other side, regarding
which criminal cases were lodged. They were also challaned under Sections
107/116 Cr.P.C., and the conditions imposed therein were also breached by
them.

17. The rights of the parties over the disputed property are not to be decided
or adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and it is the
Civil Court which has to decide their rights. It is not in dispute that, before
the initiation of the present proceedings, Civil Suit No. 1138 of 2016 was
filed by opposite party No. 3, Pradyuman Kumar, before the Civil Court
seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of Kushum Lata, the
wife of his brother Anirudh Singh. He had also prayed for a permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession
over the disputed property.

18. A perusal of copies of order-sheets in the above civil suit shows that the
temporary injunction application was filed by opposite party No.3,
Pradyumn Kumar, but the same is still kept pending by the court concerned
and no interim order has been passed.

19. The contention on behalf of the revisionists is that, since a civil suit was
already pending before the initiation of proceedings under Section 145
Cr.P.C., wherein appropriate relief could be obtained by either party, the
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were not maintainable and were
liable to be dropped. In this regard, learned counsel for the revisionists has
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amresh Tiwari
(supra).
CRLR No. 7823 of 2025
8

20. On the other hand, learned Counsel for opposite party No.3 has also
relied upon the same decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amresh
Tiwari (supra) and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it
cannot be said that in every case where a civil suit is filed, proceedings
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. would not lie. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
clarified that it is only in cases where the civil suit is for possession or
declaration of title in respect of the same property and where relief regarding
protection of the property in question can be applied for and granted by the
civil court that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should not be allowed
to continue. On the above basis, learned Counsel for opposite party No.3
submits that, in the present case, as the civil court has not granted any relief,
then mere pendency of the civil suit is no bar to the continuation of
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

21. The contention raised on behalf of opposite party No. 3 has force in it.
Admittedly, the disputed property is agricultural land, and there is no interim
order passed by the civil court in the civil suit filed by opposite party No. 3.
The parties are fighting over possession of the disputed property, and in this
regard, they sustained injuries and criminal cases have been lodged against
each other.

22. In Abdul Gafoor v. State of U.P., reported in 1991 SCC OnLine All
656, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the criminal court can
continue to exercise jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C. if no effective
interim order has been passed in the suit pending before the competent civil
or revenue court. Before laying down the aforesaid proposition of law, the
Court considered some other decisions also and held that "Of course, parallel
proceeding should not be allowed to continue if a party under Section 145
Cr.P.C. can seek an effective remedy/declaration from the Civil Court. Even
in such a case the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should be dropped
only when the Civil Court has passed some effective order indicating as to
which of the parties was entitled to possession. In some cases the proceeding
should also be dropped when the civil court has appointed a receiver or has
made some arrangement for the maintenance of such a property. But, when
the civil court does not clarify the position regarding the possession of the
contesting parties by passing an effective order and simply passes an
innocuous order like maintenance of status quo, the criminal proceedings are
CRLR No. 7823 of 2025
9

not to be dropped because in that case both the parties may stake their claim
for possession and the situation may lead to the breach of peace. In such
cases, even proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. may not prove to be
effective and the subject matter may have to be attached by the Criminal
Court. Of course, orders passed by the Criminal Court in such cases shall be
subject to the decision of the Civil Court. Thus, the Magistrate is not bound
to drop the proceedings pending in his court in all cases under section 145
Cr.P.C. for the simple reason that a civil suit is pending in the civil court in
respect of the same subject matter between the same parties or through
whom they are claiming".

23. In the instant case, the Civil Court did not pass any interim protection
order, despite an application for temporary injunction having been filed
along with the suit. Therefore, the Magistrate was duty-bound to maintain
peace and, as such, had no alternative but to proceed further with the
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The impugned attachment order,
thus, appears to be legally valid. Hence, the proceedings under Section 145
Cr.P.C. are maintainable despite pendency of civil suit.

24. Here, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amresh
Tiwari (supra) has held that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
would be dropped only where relief regarding protection of the property can
be applied and granted by the Civil Court. Admittedly, despite filing of an
application for temporary injunction, the Civil Court has not passed any
order for protection of the property. Thus, in view of Amresh Tiwari
(supra), the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was maintainable and as
in light of imminent apprehension of breach of peace, the impugned order of
attachment of the property was passed. Therefore, there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order.

25. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that there is no
illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the
Magistrate. Thus, this revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

26. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.

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

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…