Allahabad High Court
MAHESHWAR PRATAP SHAHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The SDM’s order under Section 145(1) CrPC directing status‑quo was within its jurisdiction and cannot be quashed.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash an order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (SDM) under Section 145(1) CrPC, which directed both parties to maintain status quo over a disputed property. The applicant argued that the SDM lacked jurisdiction to issue such a direction because a civil suit concerning the same property was pending before the court. The court observed that the SDM was not aware of the pending civil suit and that the order merely aimed at preserving peace, without deciding possession. Consequently, the court held that no interference with the SDM’s order was warranted. The applicant was directed to produce evidence of possession before the SDM, and the application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass a status‑quo order under Section 145(1) CrPC when a civil suit concerning the same property was pending.
- Whether the order of the SDM can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 145(1), 528
Subjects
- status quo
- Section 145 CrPC
- jurisdiction of SDM
- civil suit pending
- property dispute
- Section 528 CrPC
- criminal revision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18399 of 2026
Maheshwar Pratap Shahi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Parijat Srivastava, Sumit Suri
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit preferred today by learned counsel for applicant
which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Paritosh
Joshi, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant application has been preferred with a prayer to quash order
dated 08.02.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tamkuhiraj,
Kushinagar in Case No.1913 of 2022 (Rohit Pratap Shahi Vs. Maheshwar
Pratap Shahi), under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. whereby, both the parties were
directed to maintain status quo over the property in dispute.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has challenged
the impugned order on the ground that the concerned Sub Divisional
Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 08.02.2023, had acted
beyond its jurisdiction in shape of directing both the parties to maintain
status quo over the property in dispute, since he is not empowered to pass
such direction specifically when the civil suit in respect of dispute over the
same property, is still before learned court concerned. Learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant further contended that the
impugned order was also challenged by applicant by way of preferring
Criminal Revision No.77 of 2023 which was dismissed by learned revisional
court vide order dated 06.07.2025 on the ground that by the impugned order,
both the parties were directed to produce their evidence in respect of
possession over the property in dispute only on the date fixed. It has also
been observed in the order dated 06.07.2025 by learned revisional court that
no decision in respect of possession over the disputed property was given by
NA528 No. 18399 of 2026
2
concerned SDM and only for maintaining peace, order of status quo was
passed. It has also been submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of applicant that at present, applicant is in possession of the disputed
property.
5. A precise query has been made before learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of applicant that at any point of time, it was brought into
knowledge of the concerned SDM that with regard to the same property, a
civil suit is pending. In reply to the same, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of applicant has fairly submitted that such information was never
furnished before the concerned SDM at any point of time.
6. By bare perusal of the impugned order dated 08.02.2023, it is apparent
that no decision in respect of possession over the disputed property was
given by concerned SDM and only for maintaining peace, order of status
quo was passed directing both the parties to produce their
evidence/document in respect of their possession over the property in
dispute, and it is also an admitted fact that at no point of time, it was brought
into knowledge of the concerned SDM that with regard to the same property,
a civil suit is pending. Considering the said facts, no interference is required
in the order impugned.
7. Applicant is hereby directed to prefer document/evidence in respect of his
possession over the disputed property before concerned SDM where the
proceedings under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. is pending to be adjudicated
finally.
8. Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of.
May 5, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…