Read Time: 08 minutes

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that when a report is received by the Magistrate on apprehension of breach of peace and a property is involved, the Magistrate can only make an inquiry for the limited purpose of the determination of possession of the property in dispute, while in no way entering into the question of determination of the title of the property.

"There can be no question that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. would be subordinate to civil proceedings", remarked Justice Asha Menon.

Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code deals with the procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace.

One Murari Mirchandani had approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the Notice dated 8th September, 2021 issued by SDM, Hauz Khas, South District, New Delhi in case titled Raj Narayan Singh v. Jitendra Kumar Sardana & Anr., and for setting aside the proceedings emanating from this Notice.

Mirchandani, who was engaged in the business of real estate, had bought a property situated in Panchsheel park from one Jitender Sardana, who was the brother of Surender Kumar Sardana, to whom the property was originally leased to, by the DDA.

A dispute regarding the said property was already underway and Jitendra Sardana entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on behalf of himself and his siblings with Mirchandani for sale of the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.19 crores.

A sum of Rs.5 lakhs was also paid to these persons in cash. An Agreement to Sell was also executed on 11th April, 2012 by Jitendra Sardana, on behalf of himself and Sushma Diwan and Sushila Arora (the other siblings) for the 3/4th share in the property.

Later, a suit for partition was filed by the daughter of one of the deceased sisters of Sardana, and Mirchandani was informed that the sale could not be processed.

In 2014, a complaint was filed by one of the siblings, upon which a Kalandara was prepared under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the property in question was sealed. The High Court directed the SDM to dispose of the proceedings within a period of six months after her status quo order was challenged.

The grievance of the petitioner was that after the dismissal of the revision petition against the said order of the SDM a fresh application for de-sealing of the property and handing over the possession to a respondent-heir was filed.

The SDM issued Notice to concerned parties to appear before her, also intimating Mirchandani of the filing of said application.

If there is any question of title, then it is only a civil court that can decide it, said the High Court.

"The SDM must abide by the determination of the inter se rights of parties, whether interim or final, by the civil court. In case where despite the civil case pending and orders being passed by the civil court therein, there was a threat to breach of peace, then proceeding would be initiated under Section 107 and not under Section 145 Cr.P.C....", the single-judge bench added.

High Court further held that the impugned notice was ex facie perverse as the question regarding the title and the right of possession to the suit property was under consideration of the competent courts i.e., the High Court and the District Court.

Holding the action taken by SDM to be completely in violation of the law and being a perverse exercise of powers, the High Court, with a view to prevent the abuse of the process of court, quashed the impugned Notice.

Case title: MURARI MIRCHANDANI vs. STATE & ORS.