Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jeevan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 July, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JP:32449]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1995/2025
CNR: RJHC010248692025
URN: CRLMP / 3500U / 2025
1. Jeevan Ram Spouse/o Shri Chokha Ram, Aged About 70
Years, R/o Nagwara, Police Station Chitawa, Tehsil
Kuchaman City, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.) (Senior Citizen)
2. Raju Ram S/o Jeevan Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Nagwara, Police Station Chitawa, Tehsil Kuchaman City,
Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)
3. Bega Ram S/o Jeevan Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Nagwara, Police Station Chitawa, Tehsil Kuchaman City,
Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)
4. Rupa Ram S/o Chokha Ram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Nagwara, Police Station Chitawa, Tehsil Kuchaman City,
Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)
5. Hema Ram S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Nagwara, Police Station Chitawa, Tehsil Kuchaman City,
Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kuchaman City, Dist. Nagaur.
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Chitawa, Dist.
Nagaur.
4. Rameshwar Lal S/o Shri Mohan Ram, R/o Nagwara, Police
Station Chitawa, Tehsil Kuchaman City, Dist. Nagaur
(Raj.)
5. Bhagu Ram S/o Rameshwar Lal, R/o Nagwara, Police
Station Chitawa, Tehsil Kuchaman City, Dist. Nagaur
(Raj.)
6. Chuna Ram S/o Mohan Ram, R/o Nagwara, Police Station
Chitawa, Tehsil Kuchaman City, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)
7. Arjun Ram S/o Shri Lachcha Ram, R/o Nagwara, Police
Station Chitawa, Tehsil Kuchaman City, Dist. Nagaur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Saharan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SP Sharma
Mr. Dalpat Singh
Mr. Rituraj Dewal
Mr. Vikram Chaudhary
Mr. N.S. Chandawat, DyGA
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:21:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:18:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32449] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-1995/2025]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 19/05/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 19/05/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/07/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) has
been preferred by the petitioners assailing the order dated
25.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kuchaman City, District Didwana-Kuchaman in Criminal Revision
No.15/2024, whereby the revision petition preferred by petitioner
Nos.1 to 4 came to be dismissed and the orders dated 01.10.2024
and 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Kuchaman City in Criminal Complaint No.4/2024 were affirmed.
1.1 By the said orders, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
upon a complaint preferred by respondent No.3, issued notices to
the parties, directed attachment of the disputed land, appointed
respondent No.3 as the receiver thereof and further directed that
possession of the attached land be taken.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present
matter arises out of a long-standing dispute between the
petitioners and the respondents with respect to agricultural land
comprised in Khasra Nos. 193, 194, 198, 5674/194 admeasuring
5.51 hectares, situated at Village Nagwada, Tehsil Kuchaman,
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:21:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:18:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32449] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-1995/2025]
District Nagaur, the principal controversy relating to the joint tube-
well and the common approach way appurtenant thereto.
2.1 Owing to the said dispute, the parties have been involved in
repeated incidents of violence, giving rise to several criminal
proceedings. Initially, on 02.07.2022, cross-complaints were
lodged by the rival parties at Police Station Chitawa, whereupon
proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated to
maintain peace. In these circumstances, acting upon the police
report submitted on the complaint of the petitioners themselves,
the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kuchaman City, initiated
proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. and, by order
dated 18.01.2023, attached the disputed property and appointed
the Tehsildar as Receiver.
2.2 The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision No.
2/2023, wherein the Revisional Court vide order dated 12.09.2024
remanded the matter for fresh consideration after affording an
opportunity of hearing to both sides. Upon remand, the learned
SDM, after considering the material on record and the gravity of
the repeated criminal incidents between the parties, again ordered
attachment of the disputed property by orders dated 01.10.2024
and 09.10.2024 and appointed the Station House Officer, Police
Station Chitawa, as Receiver.
2.3 The petitioners assailed the said orders by filing Criminal
Revision No. 15/2024; however, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kuchaman City, vide order dated 25.02.2025, dismissed
the revision petition and affirmed the orders of attachment.
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:21:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:18:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32449] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-1995/2025]
2.4 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred the present
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before this Court. On 10.03.2025,
this Court issued notices to the respondents, directed that the
parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the disputed land
until the next date of hearing and summoned the record from the
Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kuchaman City.
2.5 During the pendency of the present proceedings, the
petitioner No.1, claiming cultivatory possession over Khasra Nos.
193 and 199, pursued a revenue suit under Sections 88 and 53 of
the Rajasthan Tenancy Act seeking partition of the joint holding.
The competent Revenue Court passed a preliminary decree dated
20.02.2024 determining the respective shares of the parties and,
pursuant thereto, the Tehsildar submitted the requisite proposal
for partition.
2.6 The appeal preferred by respondent No.7, Arjun Ram, before
the Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur against the said
preliminary decree came to be dismissed vide judgment dated
28.04.2025, thereby affirming the preliminary decree.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that, in view of the
determination of the respective shares and resolution of the
dispute regarding the common way by the competent Revenue
Court, the foundation for continuation of the attachment
proceedings no longer survives. It is further averred that, the
petitioners being agriculturists by profession, their livelihood is
entirely dependent upon the disputed agricultural land and,
therefore, they sought an early hearing of the present petition.
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:21:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:18:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32449] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-1995/2025]
4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the material available on record as well as all the orders
passed by the Courts below.
5. It is imperative to discuss the precedents set by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court concerning Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. and to
fully comprehend the legal position, it is necessary to first
reproduce these provisions, which are provided below for ready
reference:-
“145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is
likely to cause breach of peace.–
(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of
a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to
cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water
or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall
make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so
satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to
attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and
time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims
as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression “land or
water” includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other
produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property.
(3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by
this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or
persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall
be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or
near the subject of dispute.
(4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or
the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject
of dispute, persue the statements so put in, hear the parties,
receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such
further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible,
decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of
the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of
the subject of dispute:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has
been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next
before the date on which the report of a police officer or other
information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and
before the date of his order under sub-section (1), he may treat
the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession
on the date of his order under sub-section (1).
(5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to
attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no
such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:21:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:18:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32449] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-1995/2025]the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further
proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such
cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1)
shall be final.
(6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or
should under the proviso to sub -section (4) be treated as being,
in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order
declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until
evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all
disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when he
proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to
possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.
(b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and
published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3).
(7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate
may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be
made a party to the proceeding and shall thereupon continue the
inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal
representative of a deceased party for the purposes of such
proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the
deceased party shall be made parties thereto.
(8) If the Magistrate is of opinion that any crop or other produce
of the property, the subject of dispute in a proceeding under this
section pending before him, is subject to speedy and natural
decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of
such property, and, upon the completion of the inquiry, shall
make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale-
proceeds thereof, as he thinks fit.
(9) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the
proceedings under this section, on the application of either party,
issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to
produce any document or thing.
(10) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation
of powers of the Magistrate to proceed under section 107.”
“146. Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint
receiver.–
(1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under
sub-section (1) of section 145 considers the case to be one of
emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in
such possession as is referred to in section 145, or if he is unable
to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such
possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of
dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the
parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the
possession thereof: Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw
the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no
longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the
subject of dispute.
(2) When the Magistrate attaches the subject of dispute, he may,
if no receiver in relation to such subject of dispute has been
appointed by any Civil Court, make such arrangements as he
considers proper for looking after the property or if he thinks fit,(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:21:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:18:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32449] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-1995/2025]appoint a receiver thereof, who shall have, subject to the control
of the Magistrate, all the powers of a receiver appointed under
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908):Provided that in the
event of a receiver being subsequently appointed in relation to
the subject of dispute by any Civil Court, the Magistrate–
(a) shall order the receiver appointed by him to hand over
the possession of the subject of dispute to the receiver
appointed by the Civil Court and shall thereafter discharge
the receiver appointed by him;
(b) may make such other incidental or consequential orders
as may be just.”
From bare perusal of these Sections, this Court feels that
before initiating a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. or moving
an application under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C., circumstances
suggesting imminent danger of breach of peace or like
circumstance to presume instant threat to public peace and
tranquility has to be shown with the assistance of cogent and
reliable material. It should not be a vague or bald assertion rather
should be supported with strong material. The law in respect of
proceeding under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. is no more res-
integra that before initiating any proceeding under Sections 145 &
146 Cr.P.C. there has to be a serious question of possession and a
situation where it is not comprehensible as to which party was in
possession of the land in question at the relevant point of time or
the circumstances suggesting that parties are bent upon to take
forcible possession of the immovable property and therefore, there
is an imminent danger to public peace and tranquility. The law in
this regard has been discussed and dealt with by this Court in the
matter of Ashoknath Chela Kevalnath Vs. State of Rajasthan
passed in SBCRLMP No.1949/2022 decided on 16.11.2022.
The relevant part of the order is being reproduced as under:
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:21:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:18:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32449] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-1995/2025]“The law on this point is not res integra that whenever an
Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of the Police Officer
or upon other information that a dispute which is likely to cause
breach of peace exists, concerning any land or water or the
boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an
order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and
requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his
Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and
to put in written statements of their respective claims with regard
to the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.
Upon appearance of the parties, the Executive Magistrate is
supposed to consider the claims of the rival parties in respect of
the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. It is the
requirement of law that prior to passing any order of attachment
of the property and appointment of a receiver, the Magistrate
should apply his mind as to whether there are emergent
circumstances and eminent danger of breach of peace or not and
order of attachment of property and appointment of a receiver
under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. can be passed only after conducting
a preliminary inquiry under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. The Executive
Magistrate is not supposed or rather authorized by the law to
adjudicate the right or title of any party over the property in
question. The Executive Magistrate is not empowered to pass
order of taking the possession from one party and deliver it to the
other party or to the receiver, if the question of possession is not
under dispute. There is a distinction between right to have
possession and question of possession. Right to possession can
be decided by a competent Civil/Revenue Court after adjudication
of the issues and pleas of the parties to the lis and then it can
pass a verdict as to which party has a right to have possession
but when it comes to question of possession and the Executive
Magistrate is satisfied that none of the parties were then in such
possession or the Magistrate was unable to satisfy himself as to
which of them was in possession of the subject of dispute and by
placing facts strong apprehension has been shown regarding
breach of peace and tranquility in respect of the conflict of
possession then the Executive Magistrate can very well exercise
power under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and 146(1) Cr.P.C. The Executive
Magistrate is required to record satisfaction of emergent nature of
the case as well as eminent danger of breach of peace or
tranquility before passing an order of attachment.”
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:21:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:18:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32449] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-1995/2025]
6. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as
well as the legal principles discussed above, this Court is of the
view that during the pendency of the present petition, a material
development has taken place which has a direct bearing on the
controversy involved herein. The competent Revenue Court, vide
judgment and preliminary decree dated 20.02.2024, has
adjudicated the proprietary rights of the parties by declaring
petitioner No.1, Jeevan Ram, to be a co-sharer in the property in
dispute and has passed a preliminary decree for partition. The
appeal preferred against the said decree came to be dismissed by
the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur, vide judgment
dated 28.04.2025, thereby affirming the determination of rights
and shares of the parties.
6.1 The very foundation of proceedings under Sections 145 and
146 of the CrPC is the existence of a dispute concerning
possession which is likely to occasion a breach of peace. Such
proceedings are purely preventive in nature and are never
intended to confer, adjudicate or regulate proprietary or
possessory rights. Once the competent Civil/Revenue Court has
authoritatively determined the rights and shares of the parties,
the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate under Sections 145
and 146 CrPC necessarily recedes into the background, leaving the
implementation of such adjudication to the competent Revenue
Court in accordance with law.
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:21:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:18:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32449] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-1995/2025]
6.2 The final decree proceedings, delivery of possession and
consequential implementation shall now be governed by the
orders of the competent Revenue Court. If, during the course of
implementation of the decree, any obstruction is created or there
arises any apprehension of breach of peace, it shall always be
open to the police authorities to take appropriate preventive
measures strictly in accordance with law for maintenance of public
order. However, the preventive jurisdiction under Sections 145 and
146 Cr.P.C. cannot be permitted to continue so as to virtually
eclipse or frustrate the adjudication rendered by the competent
Revenue Court.
6.3 It is a settled principle that once lawful rights and
entitlement over the property stand judicially determined by a
competent forum, a person cannot be deprived of the fruits of
such adjudication merely because the rival party threatens
resistance or is likely to create law and order problems. Such
resistance cannot become a legal justification for continuing
attachment of the property or for permitting a police officer to
remain Receiver thereof indefinitely. The duty of the State, in such
circumstances, is not to obstruct enforcement of lawful rights but
to ensure that the decree of the competent Court is implemented
peacefully by extending necessary police assistance and by taking
preventive action against any person attempting to disturb public
peace.
7. In view of the subsequent adjudication of rights by the
competent Revenue Court and the affirmation thereof by the
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:21:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:18:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32449] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-1995/2025]
learned Revenue Appellate Authority, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the continuation of the attachment
proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. has outlived its
purpose and cannot be sustained in law.
8. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed.
The impugned orders dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kuchaman City and 25.02.2025 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchaman City, are
hereby set aside.
8.1 It is, however, clarified that the competent Revenue Court
shall proceed with the implementation of the decree and conclude
the partition proceedings strictly in accordance with law. In the
event of any obstruction or apprehension of breach of peace
during execution or delivery of possession, the concerned
Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer shall
ensure maintenance of law and order by taking such preventive
measures as may be warranted under law, so that the decree of
the competent Court is implemented without impediment.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
7/Mamta Tak/330
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:21:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:18:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
