Supreme Court of India
MATHURALALversusBHANWARLAL & ANR.
- Citation
- 1979 INSC 180
- Decided
- 13 September 1979
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- D A DESAI
Holding
A magistrate’s jurisdiction under s.145 does not cease upon attachment of the property under s.146(1); the enquiry must continue until a final order is made.
Summary
The appellant Mathuralal disputed a house with Bhanwarlal, prompting the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate to issue a preliminary order under s.145(1) CrPC 1973 and subsequently attach the property under s.146(1) on the ground of emergency. The appellant contended that once the attachment was made, the magistrate lost jurisdiction to continue the enquiry under s.145, but the magistrate rejected this objection. After unsuccessful revisions in the Sessions Court and High Court, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The Court held that sections 145 and 146 must be read together and that the attachment does not terminate the magistrate’s jurisdiction; the magistrate must proceed with the enquiry and may only stop it under s.145(5) if the dispute no longer exists. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the magistrate’s authority to continue the proceedings after attachment.
Issues considered
- Whether a magistrate’s jurisdiction under s.145 CrPC 1973 continues after making an attachment under s.146(1) on the ground of emergency.
- Whether sections 145 and 146 of the CrPC 1973 should be read together or in isolation for the purpose of determining the magistrate’s powers.
- Whether the attachment of the disputed property automatically transfers jurisdiction to a civil court.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 145, s. 146
Subjects
Section 145 CrPCSection 146 CrPCpreliminary orderattachment of propertyemergencymagistrate jurisdictionbreach of peaceproperty disputecriminal procedure
Judgment
620
A MATHURALAL
v.
BHANWARLAL & ANR.
September 13, 1979
• (D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Ss. 145 · and 146-Scope of-Magis-
. -Irate if competent to proceed with enquiry after attaching the property ·in dis-·
pute.
'
I
Apprehending breach of peace on account of a dispute over a house bet-
C ween the appellant and the respondent the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed
a preliminary order under s. 145(1), Cr.P.C., 1973 and later attached the sub·
ject matter of dispute under ~- 146(1) on the ground that it was a case of·
emergency. The appellant's objection that once the subject of the dispute had
been attached under s. 146, he was not competent to proceed with the enquiry
under s. 145 was overruled by the Magistrate. Having failed in his revision.
petitions before the Sessions Judge and the High Court the appellant preferred·
D an appeal to this Court.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that while under the previous
Code it was permissible to attach the subject of dispute pending enquiry by
the Magistrate as contemplated by s. 145 such attachment pending decision by
the Magistrate was not permissible under the present Code and that once the
Magistrate effected an attachment he had nothing further to do except await. -f.
E the decision or the direction of the civil court.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD : It is wrong to say that the Magistrate's jurisdiction ends as soon.
as an attachmen.t is made on the ground of emergency. !-'i32 q
1. (a)· Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code together con-
F stitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood.
of a breach of the peace because of a dispute concerning any land or water or
their boundaries. If s. 146 is torn out of its setting and read independently
of s.. 145, it is capable of being construed to mean that once an attachment
is effected in any of the three situations mentioned therein, the dispute can only
be resolved by a competent Court and not by the Magistrate effecting the
attachment. But s. 146 cannot be so separated from. s. 145. It can only be:
G read in the context of s. 145. Contextual construction m~t prevail over isola~
tionist construction. That is one of the first principles of construction. [629 A-C]
(b) On being satisfied about the existence of a dispute likely to cause a
breach of peace, the Magistrate issues a preliminary order stating the grounds
of his satisfaction and calling upon the parties to appear before him and submit
their written statement. · On perusal of the written statements he would vro-
H ceed to record eviden,ce to decide ,which of the parties was in possession on
the date of the preliminary order. If he decides tbat one of the parties was-
• in p06Session he declares possession of such party. If on the other
MATHURALAL v. BHANWARLAL 621
hand · he is unable to decide who was in possession or if he is of opinion
that none of the· parties was in such possession, he may say so.; If he. decides
that one of the parties was in possession he declares the possession of such
. property. In the other two situations he attaches the property. Thus a pro-
ceeding begu'n with a preliminary .order must be followed up by an enquiry
and end with the Magistrate decicJing in OQ.e of three ways and making con-
sequential orders. [630 A-D]
(c) The Magistrate may, however, stop the proceedings at any time if one
or the other of the parties satisfies him "that there has never been or· that ther.e
is no longer any dispute likely to cause a. breach of the peace. The :Magistrate
then cancels the preliminary order vide s. 145(5) except in this event a pro-
ceeding initiated by a preliminary order under s. 145(1-) must run its full
course. [630 E1
(d) One of the situations provided under s. 146(1) is that in a case of
emergency a Magistrate ·may attach the property at any time after making
the preliminary order. There is no express stipulation in s. 146 that the
jurisdiction Olf the Magistrate ends with the attachment. Nor is it implied.
The obligation to proceed with the enquiry as prescribe~ by s. 145(4) is against
any such implication. [630 G] ·
2. The position under the section before its amendment in 1955 was that
the parties that the right to adduce evidence and the Magistrate could take
.further evidence if he so desired. There were two principal changes in the
s:ction ~ a result of the amendment in 1955 : (1) the preliminary order was
also to require the parties to put in documents and aftldavits of such persons
clS they intended to rely upon in support of their claims. The Magistrate wa's
to decide the case on a consideration of the written statements, the documents E
.and affidavits put in by· the 'parties and after hearing them come to a con-
clusion. (2) Where he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties
was in possession or where he decided that none of the parties was in possession
after attacbing t11e property, the Magistrate was himself to refer the dispute
to the civil court .instead of leaving it to the parties to go to the civil court.
He was to obtain a finding of the civil court and thereafter conclude the pro-
ceeding under s. 145 in conformity with the decision of the civil court. The
revised procedure having been found to qe unsatisfactory ss. 145 and 146
were again amended so as to revert to the position obtaining before the 1955
amendment. In the present s. 146 all situations in which alll attachment may be
made are now mentioned together. [631 D·F]
Chandu :Vaik & Ors. v. Sitamm B. Naik & Anr. [19/8] 2 SCR 353=1978
Crl. L J. 356 distingui~hed. G·
Kshetra Mofirm Sarkar v. Purmz Chandra Mandal, 1978 Crl: L.J. 936,
approved.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 10 of
1979.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment· and Order dated HI
12-10-1978 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal 'Revision
No. 336 of 1978.
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.
D. N. Mukherjee and N. R. Choudhary for the Appellant.
Dalveer Bhandari for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. On the report of the Station House Officer,
)-,
Manak Chowk, Ratlam, that there was a d~ute between Mathuralal
and Bhanwarlal concerning a house situated"tn._ Kambalpatti, Ghas
Bazar, Ratlam, which was likely to cause a breach of the peace, -the
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratlam, passed a preliminary order under
~..,ction 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, on 1st
March, 1978. On 2nd March, 1978, the learned Magistrate attached
,
-C the subject of dispute under Section 146 ( 1) r Criminal Procedure
Code co'nsidering the case to be one of emergency. Thereafter\ when
the learned Magistrate wanted to proceed with the enquiry under Sec·
tion 145 Criminal Procedure Code, an objection was raised by
Mathuralal that such an enquiry was incompetent once the subject of
the dispute had been attached under Section 146 Criminal Procedure
'D Code. The objection was overruled by the learned Magistrate. ,Suc-
cessive Revisio'ns taken before the Sessions Judge and the High Court
having borne no fruit, Mathuralal has filed the present appeal by
spoxial leave of this Court.· The High Court, we may mention here,
thought that the matter was concluded against the appellant by the
decision of this Court in Clumdu Naik & Ors. v. Sitaram B.· Naik &
Anr.C)
Shri Mukherji, learned counsel for the appellant urged that under
Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, a'n attachment
of the subject of dispute could be effected in three situations : (i) if
the Magistrate at any time after making the order under Section 145(1)
·F considered the case to be one of emergency, or (ii) if he decided
that none of the parties was then in such possession as was referred
to in Sectiory 145, or (iii) if he was unable to satisfy himself as to
which of them was theh in such possession of the subject of dispute.
The attachm~nt so effected, regardless of the situation consequent upon
which it was effected, was to subsist until a competent Court deter-
mined the rights o~ the parties with· regard to the person entitled to
possession. This, he urged, clearly indicated that after an attachment
was effected it was the Civil Court and not the Magistrate that was to
have further jurisdiction in the matter. He contrasted the provisions
of Section 146(1) ,of the pres~nt code with the provisions of Section
146(1) and the third proviso to Section 145 (4) of the Criminal Pro-
cedure Code of 1898 as amended by Act 26 of 1955. He drew our
(1) [1978]2 SCR 353 =1978 Crt. L. J. 356.
MI\THURALAL v. BHANWARLAL (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 62 3
A
attention to the circumstance that the third proviso to Section 145 ( 4)
<lf the old Code empowered the Magistrate, if he considered the case
<lne of em~rgency, to attach the subject of dispute p;!ndi'ng his decision
under that Section, while Section 146(1) of. the previous Code em-
..(
powered the Magistrate to attach the subject of dispute if the Magis- B
t trate was of the opinion that none of the parties was then in possession
-or if the Magistrate was unable to decide as to which of them was in
-such possession and thereafter to refer to the Civil Court for decision
the question whether aily and which of the parties was in possession
c
·of the subject of dispute. Therefore, he said, under the previous
Cod•;!, in the case of attachment becaus'e of emergency the Magistrate
was himself competent to decide the question of possession and in the
-other two cases he was to refer the dispute to the Civil Court,_where-
D.
as, und;!r the present Code, in all the three situations the Magistrate
was to leave the matter for adjudication by the Civil Court. Thus,
the submission of Shri Mukherji was that while under the previous
Code it was permissible to attach the subject of dispute pending e'n-
..quiry by the Magistrate as contemplated by Section 145, such attach- E
-ment pending decision by the Magistrate was not permissible under
1he provisions of the present Code. According to him so soon as. the
Magistrate effected an attachment he had nothing further to d~ except
:await the decision or the directio'ns of the Civil Court.
F
Though at first blush there appeared to be force in the submissions
.of Shri Mukherji, a closer scrutiny of the provisions of Sections 145
and 146 ' exposes their unsoundness. It may perhaps be desirable, at G
1his stage to extract the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 to ilie
'
extent that they are rele'-:ant, in the Code of 1898 before it was
amended in 1955, in the Code of 1898 after it was ame'nded in 1955
:and in the Code of 1973 :
n
1898 Code before it was amended in 1955 1898 Code after tire amendment of 1955 1973 Code a>
~
(a) (b) (c)
145 (1) Whenever a District Magistrate 145 ( 1) Whenever a District Magistrate, 145 (1) Whenever an Executive Magis-
""
Sub.divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of Sub.divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of trate is satisfied from a report of a police
the first class is satisfied from a police- the first class is satisfied from a police- officer or upon other information that a
report or other information that a dispute report or other ·information that a dispute dispute likely to cause a breach of the
likely to cause a breach of the peace ex- likely to cause a breach of the peace ex- peace exists concerning any la~ or water
ists concerning any land or water or the ists concerning any land or water or the or the boundaries thereof, within his local
~
boundaries thereof, within the local liniits boundaries thereof, within the local limits jurisdiction, he shall make an order in
of his jurisdiction, he shall make an order of his jurisdiction, he shall make an order writing, stating the grounds of his being
in writing, stating the grounds of his being in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring 'the parties con-
so satisfied, and requiring the parties con- so satisfied, and requiring the parties con- a::
cerned in such dispute .to attend his Court ttl
cerned in such dispute to attend his Court cerned in such dispute to attend Court in in person or by pleader, on a specified 0
person or by pleader, within a time to be 0
in person or by pleader, within time to be date and time, and to put in written state-
fixed by such Magistrate, and to put in
written statements of their respective claims
fixed' by such Magistrate and to put in writ-
ten statements. of their ·respective claims as
ments of their respective claims as respects
the fact of actual possession of the subject
~
as respects the fact of actual possession of respects the fact of actual possession of !Jf dispute. ~
"0
the ~ubject of dispute. the subject of dispute and further requiring 0
them to put in such documents, or to ~
ttl
adduce, by putting in affidavits, the evi-
-dence of sli"ch persons, as they rely upon
in support of such claims.
_,
(2) " .... "
(2)
(2) ....
\.0
00
(3) A copy of the order shall be ser- (3) A copy of the order shall be ser- ( 3 ) A copy of the order shall be ser- 8
ved in manner provided by t4is Code for ved in manner provided by this Code for ved in manner provided by this Code for ....
Cfl
the service of a summons upon such per- the service of a summons upon such per- the service of a summons upon such per- .o
son or persons as the Magistrate may
son or persons as the Magistrate may son or persons as the Magistrate may
direct. and at least one copy shall b~
~
., . shall
<,\irect,. an,C,. at least qne. copy . - be.. - qirect,, an4 a,t ~~~t on~ co:ry shall be
..
. ' - }-
'
~
~
Jl1
t ~
\.
'-x'
,t._ "" -~
,._
).
~-
/
~-
. )
~- ~
•
published by being affixed to soine cons-
...·.r.:
.. --
,I
"'- ;: •
~
published by being alfixed to some cons-
"T
~ .. ,..
y ·
published by being affixed to some cons-
picuous place at or near the subject of picuous place at or near the subject of picuous place at or near the subject of
dispute. dispute. dispute. ~
~~
( 4) The Magistrate shall then, without ( 4) The Ma£istr:ite shall then, without ( 4) The Magistrate shall then, without
reference to the merits or the claims of any reference to the merits or the claims of reference to the merits or the claims of
c-f such parties to a ·right to possess the any of such parties to a. right to possess the any of such parties to a right to possess the
subject of dispute, peruse the statements subject of dispute, peruse the statements, subject of dispute, peruse the statements
so put in, hear the parties, receive all such documents and affidavits, if any, so put in, hear the parties, .. receive all
evidence as may btt produced by them, so put in, hear the parties and conclude such evidence as may be produced by them, ~
respectively, consider the effect . of such the inquiry, as far as may be practicable, take such further evidence, if any, as he. t:d
evidence, take such further evidence (if within a period of two months from the thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide
any) as he thinks necessary, and, if possi- date of the appearance of the parties be- whether any and which of the parties was,
ble, deci<k whether any and which of the fore bini a.nd, if possible, ,decide the at the date of the order made by him
parties wns at the date of the order before- ·question whetbtr any and which of the under suo-section (1)' in possession of the
mentioned in such possession of the said
subject :
·parties was at the date of the order before subject of dispute :
ment~oned in ~uch possession of the said
J
r-<
,.......
st1bject :
Q
Provided that ....... . Provided that ....... . Provid ed that ....... . s·
;:::
Provided further that ....... . .§
Ptqvided also that, if the Magistrate
1i
Provided also that, if the Magistrate ::tl
considers the case one of emergency, he considers the case one of emergency, he ~
may at any time attach the subject of dis- may at any time attach the subject· of dis- fr:
pute, pending his decision under this sec- ~
pute, pending his decision under this sec-
tion. tion. ~
'-'
· (5) Nothing in this section shall pre· (5) Nothing in Ibis section shall pre- (5) Nothing in this section shall pre-
elude nny party so required to attend, or clude any party so required to attend, or clude any party so required to attend, or a.
any other person interested, from showing any other person interested, from showing t-,)
nny othsr person interested, from showing tit
that no such dispute as aforesaid exists that no such ·dispute as aforesaid exists th at no such dispute as aforesaid exists
'(
'
1898 Code before it was amended in 1955 1898 Code after the amendment of 1955 1973 Code
m
~
(a) (b) <c> (I')
or has existed; and in such case the Magis- or has existed; and in such case the Magis- or has existed; and in :such case the Magis-
trate shall cancel his said order, and all trate shall cancel his said order, and all trate shall cancel his ~d order, and all
further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, further proceedings thereon shall be stayed,
but, subject to such cancellation, the order but, subject to such cancellation, the order but, subject to such cancellation, the order
of the Magistrate under sub-section ( 1 ) of the Magistrate under sub-section ( 1) of the Magistrate undoc · sub-section (1)
shall be final. shall be final. shall be final.
~
( 6) If the Magistrate decides that one ( 6) If the Magistrate decides that one (6) (a) If the Magistrate decides thal one d
of the parties was or should under the of the parties was or should under the ":1
of· the parties was or should under the
first proviso to sub-section ( 4) be treated 2nd proviso to sub-section ( 4) be treated proviso to .sub-section ( 4) be treated :
~
as being in such possession of the said.. as being · in such possession of the said as being in such possession of the said ttl
subject,· he shall issue an or~er declaring subject, he shall issue . an order declaring subject, he shall issue an order declaring
such party to be entitled to possession such party to be entitled to possession such party to be entitled to possession 8
thereof until· evicted 'therefrom in due
course of law, and forbidding all disturb-
thereof until elected therefrom in due
course of law, and forbidding all disturb-
thereof until evicted therefrom in due
course of law, and forbidding all disturb-
~
ance of such possession until such eviction ance of such possession until such eviction ance of such possession until such eviction ~
and when he proceeds under the first and when he proceeds under the second and when he proceeds under the first ~
proviso to sub-section ( 4), may restore to proviso to sub-section ( 4), may restore to proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to
~
....
(lj
possession the party forcibly and wrong- possession the party forcibly and wrong- possession the party forcibly and wrong-
fully dispossessed. fully dispossessed. fully dispossessed.
I
(b) ...... ..
(7) .....••• (7) ....••••
(7) - ...... . ..-
(8) ....•••. (8) ........ .........
(8) ....... .
(9) .....•.• (9) ........ .. (9) .•..•••• 8
\0
00
(10) ...... .. (10) ........
(10) .. - •••• !
(146) {1) If the Magistrate descides (146) (1) If the Magistrate is of opinion (146) (1) If the Magistrate at any time !11
that none of the parties was then in such ~J
that none of the parties was then in such after making the order under sub-section "-
...
possession, or is unable to satisfy himself
-~·~ ---~
poss~ss~, . of t4e su'Qiect of dispute, he (1) of Section 145 considers the case to be
)- ,. • -~
.
$'
~ ~
'X
"'
''
--~
~
.." r 't-.
;,,
...
• !
/
(
...
~'
._,
..t ... r-
~
as to which of them was then in such pos- 'may attach i.t, and draw up a statement one of emergency, or if he decides that
session of the subject of dispute, he may of the facts :·of the case and forward the none of the parties was then in such pos-
attach it until a competent Court has deter- record of the proceeding to a Civil Comt session as is referred to in section 145; or
mined the rights of the parties thereto, or
the ;Person entitled to possession thereof :
of competent jurisdiction to decide the
question whether any- and which of the
if he is unable to satisfy himself as to
which of them was then in such possession ~
:t.:
parties was in possession of the subject- of of the subject of dispute, he may attach
dispute at the date of the order as explain- the subject of dispute until a competent ~
t""
ed in sub-section (4) of section 145; and court has determined the rights of the ;>
t""
he shall direct the _parties to appear before parties thereto with regard to the person
the Civil Court on a date to be fixed by entitled to the possession thereof : ~
him:
Provided that such Magistrate may with·
~
z
Provided that the District Magistrate or
Provided that the District Magistrate or
the Magistrate who has attached the subject the Magistrat who has attached the subject draw the attachment at any time if he is ~
of disP.ute may withdraw the attachment at
of dispute may withdraw the attachment at any. time, if he is satisfied that there is no
satisfied that there is no longer any likeli- F:
any time, if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of a breach of the
hood of breach of the peace with regard ~
to the subject of dispute. ......._
longer any likelihoOd of a breach of the .peace in regard to the subject of dis-
peace in regard to the subject of dis- pute. Q
pute. · I t l ! I l'i I ~·
1:),
(lA) ;g
$:;)
(lB)
~
(lC) ~
~
(lD)
(1E)
·-.. -
~
:---
'-'
(2) When the Magi~trate attaches the (2) When the Magistrate attaches the {2) When the_ Magistrate attaches the
subject of dispute, he may, if he thinks fit subject of dispute, he may, if he thinks fit subjed of dispute he may, if no receiver in
and if no receiver of the property, the and if no receiver of the property, the relation to such subject of dispute, 'has been
O'l
subject of dispute, has been appointed by subject of dispute, has been appointed by appointed by any Civil Court, make such ~
~II?' Civil Co~rt appoint a re<;<[iver thereof, any Civil Col}rt a.ppoint a. rc;ceiver thereof, arrangements as ~e co~siders proper fo.r; "'-]
1898 Code before it was amended in 1955 1898 Code after the amendment of 1955 1913 Code d'>
(b) (c) tv
(a) OJ
w]lo subject to the control of the Magistrate, who subject to the control of the Magistrate, looking after the property or if he thinks
shall have all the powers of a receiver shall have all the powers of a receiver fit, appoint a receiver thereof, who shall
appointed under the Code of Civil Pro- appointed under the Code of Civil Pro- have, subject to the control of the Ma.gis-
cedure. cedure. trate all
the powers of a ·receiver appointed .
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 of 1908)
rJl
c:::
"d
l:'::t
Provided that, in the event of a receiver
of the property, the subject of dispute,
Provided that, in the event of a receiver
of the property, the subject of dispute,
Provided that in the event of a receiver
being subsequently appointed in relation to
~tn
being subsequently appointed by any Civil
Court, possession shall be made over to
being subsequently appointed by any Civil
Court, possession shall be made over to
the subject of dispute by any Civil Court,
the Magistrate-
g
l:'::t
him by the receiver appointed by the him by the receiver appointed by the ~
Magistrate, who shall thereupon be dis- Magistrate, who shall thereupon be dis-
charged. charged • ~
"d
0
(a) shall order the receiver appointed
by him to hand over the possession of the
~
~
subject of dispute to the receiver appomted
by the Civil Court and shall thereaft~
discharge the receiver appointed by him;
(b) may make such other incidental or
consequential orders as may be just. -
,......,
\0
8
00
.....
'f!
\ ?-)
l :;o
.,
-
\ ..,
-
!.-
~
'7 ~ ~·
l,l\ .,..j ,,. ' l
MATHURALAL V. BHANWARLAL (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) G2\J
Quite obviously, Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure A
Code together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation
where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace because of a dis-
pute concerning any land or water or their boundaries. If Section
146 is torn out of its setting and rr~ad independently of Section 145,
it is capable of being construed to mean that once an attachment is
B
effected in any of the three situations mentioned therein, the dispute can
only be P~solved by a competent Court a·nd not by the Magistrate
·~..,
effecting the attachment. But Section 146 cannot be so separated
from Section 145. It can only be read in the context of Section 145.
Contextual construction must surely prevail over isolationist construc-
tion. Oth~rwise, it may mislead. That is one of the first principles c
of construction. Let us therefore look at Section 145 and co'nsider
Section 146 in that context. Section 145 contemplates, first, the satis-
faction of the Magistrate that a dispute likely to cause a .breach of the
peace exists concerning any land or water or their boundaries, and,
next, the issuance of a'n order, known to lawyers practising in the
Criminal Courts as a preliminary order, stating the grounds of his D
satisfaction and requiring the parties concerned to attend, his Court
and to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards
the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. A preliminary
order is considered so b<~:sic to a proceeding unde~ Section 145 that
a failure to draw up a preliminary ord::r has been held by several High
Courts to vitiate all the subsequent proceedings. It is by making a E
preliminary order that the Magistrate assumes jurisdiction to proceed
under Sections 145 and 146. In fact, the first of the situations in
which an attachment may be effected under Section 146 of the 1973
Code pas to be "at any time after making the order under sub-section
(1) of Section 145'' while the other two situations have, necessarily,
to be at the final stage of the proceeding initiated by the preliminary
order. Now, the preliminary ordef is required to enjoin the parties
not only to appear before the Magistrate on a specifr>.,d date but also
to put in their written statements. Sub-section (3) of Section 145
prescribes the mode of service of the preliminary order on the parties.
Sub-section (4) cast~ a duty on the Magistrate to peruse the written G
statements of the parties, to receive the evidence adduced by them, to
take further. evidence if necessary and, if possible, to decide which of
the parties was in possession on the date of the preliminary order.
If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was in possession he
is to make a final order in the manner provided by sub-section (6).
Provision for the two situations where the Magistrate is unable to B
decide which of the parties was in possession or where he is of the
view that neither of them was in possession is made in Section 146
4-625SCI/79
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R
A under which he may attach the.subject of dispute until the determina-
tion of the rights of parties by a competent Court._ The scheme of
Sectio'ns 145 and 146 is that the Magistrate, on being satisfied about
the existenee of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace, issues
a preliminary order stating the grounds of his satisfaction and calling
upon the parties to appear before him and submit their written state-
ments. Then he proceeds to ~ruse the statements, to receive and to
take evidence and to decide which of the parties was in possession on
the date of the prelimi'nary order. On the other hand if he is unable
to decide who was in such possession or if he is of the view that none
of the parties was in such possession he may say so. If he decides
that one of the parties was in possession, he declares the possession
of such party. In the other two situations he attaches the property.
Thus a proceeding begun with a preliminary order must be followed
up by an enquiry and end with the Magistrate decidtng in one of tb..ree
ways and making consequential orders. ~here is no half way house,
there is no question of stopping in the middle and leaving the parti~s
0 to go to the Civil Court. Proceeding may however be stopped at any
time if one or other of the parties satisfies the magistrate that there
has never bee'n or there is no longer any dispute likely to cause a
breach of the peace. If there is no dispute likely to cause a breach
of the peace, the foundation for the jurisdiction of the magistrate
disappears. The magistrate then cancels the preliminary order~ This
E is provided by Section 145 sub-section ( 5). Except for the reason
that there is no dispute likely to cause a breach of the peac~ and as
provided by Section 145 (5), a proceeaing initiated by a preliminary
order under Section 145 (1) must run its full course. Now, in a case
of emergency, a magistrate may attach the property, at any time after
making the preliminary order. This is the first of the situations pro-
vided in Section 146 ( 1) in which an attachment may be effected.
'There is no express stipulation in Section 146 that the jurisdiction of
the magistrate ends with the attachment. Nor is it implied. Far '
from it. The obligatio'n to proceed with the enquiry as pn:scribed by
Section 145 sub-section 4 is against any such implication. Suppose a
magistrate draws up a preliminary order under section 145(1) and
immediately follows it up with an attachment under Section 146(1),
the whok exercise of stating the grounds of his satisfaction and call!-
ing upon the parties to appear before him a'nd submit their written
statements becomes futile if he is to have no further jurisdiction in
the matter. And yet he cannot make an order of attachment under
B Section 146(1) on the ground of emergency without first making a
preliminary order in the manner prescribed by Section 145 (1). There
is no reason why we should adopt a construction which will lead to
MATHURALAL V. BHANWARLAL (Chinnappa Reiidy,/,) 631
such inevitable contradictions. We mentioned a little earlier that the A
only provision for stopping the proceeding and cancelling the prelimi-
nary order is to be found in ~ction 145 (5) and it can only be on
the ground that there is no longer any dispute likely to cause a breach
.of the peace. An emergency is the basis of attachment under the first
limb of Section 146(1) and if there is an emergency, no one can say
,-:_ B
that there is no dispute lik•.;ly to cause a breach of the peace .
• ...
Let us examine if a comparative study of the provisions as they
stood, before 1955 a"nd after 1955 under the old Code and as they
now stand under the 1973 Code lead us to a conclusion other than
that indicated in the preceding paragraph. From the comparative
table of the provisions, it is seen that there were two principal changes
ma<le by the 1955 amendment. The first was that the preliminary
c
~.
order was also to require the parties to put in documents and the
affidavits of such persons as they ibtended to rely upon in support of
their c1aims. The magistrate was to decide the case on a considera-
tion of the written statements the documents and the affidavits put in D
by the parties and after hearing them. The position eariler was that
the parties had the right to adduce evidence and the magistrate could
take further evidence if he so desired. The second change was that
in· the two situations where he was unable to satisfy himself as to
which of •the parties was in possession or where he decided that none
of the partie~.> was in possession, after attaching the property, the E.
magistrate was himself to refer the dispute to the Civil Court instead
of leaving it to the parties to go to the Civil Court. He was to obtain
the ·finding of the Civil Court and thereafter conclude the proceeding
under Sr~ction 145 Criminal Procedure Code in conformity with the
decision of the Civil Court. The ,revised procedure introduced by the
1955 amendment was not found to work satisfactorily and, therefore, F
it was, apparently, thought desirable to revert to the old procedure.
The provisions of Sections 145 and 146 of the 1973 Code are sub-
stantially the same as the corresponding provisions before the 1955
amendment. The only notio.;able change is that the second proviso
to Section 145(4) (as it stood before the 1955 amendment) has now
G
been transposed to Section 146 but without the words "pending his
docision under this Section" and with the words "at any tim:: after
making the order under Section 145 ( 1)" super-added, The change,
clearly, is in the interests of convenient draftsmanship. All situations
-~ in which an attachment may b.; made are now mentioned together in
Section 146. The words "pending his decision under this section" H
have apparently been omitted as unnecessary since Section 145 pro-
vides how the proceeding initiated by a preliminary order must pro-
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 s.c.R.
A ceed and end and therefore an attachment made 'at any time after
making under Section 145 (1)' can only continue until the termination
of the proceeding. At the termination of the. proceeding, if he finds
one of the parties was in possession as stipulated, the magistrate must
make an order as provided in Section 145( 6) and withdraw the attach-
ment as provided in Section 146(1) since there ca'n ~ no dispute
8 likely to cause a breacl1 of the peace once an order in terms of Sec-
./
tion 145(6) is made.
c
In our view, it is wrong to hold that !he magistrate's Jurisdiction
ends as soon as an attachment is made on the ground of emergency.
A large 'number of cases decided by several High Courts some taking
one view and the other a different view were read to us. We do not
••
consider it necessary to refer to them except to acknowledge that we
derived considerable assistance from the judgment of Lahiri, J., in
Kshetra Mohan Sarkar v. Paran Chandra Mandal(l), in arriving at
our conclusion. We may also add that the question now at issue did
not arise for consideration in Chandu Naik & Ors. v. Sitaram B. Naik
D & Anr. (supra). What was decided there was that a proceeding under
Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code did not abate because of Sec-
tion 8 of the Maharashtra Vacant Land (Prohibition of unauthorised
Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act, 1975. In the result the
aptx!al is dismissed.
E
P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.
. -·-.
(1) 1978 Crl. L. J. 936.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 145 CrPC"Sign in to search