1 2025:CGHC:2820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 512 of 2018 Joyal Bechak S/o Late Shri S. Bechak Aged About 75 Years Presidrnt - Church Management Committee, M. E.C. Madan Mohan Malviya Ward Nayamunda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rev. S. C. Sawal S/o Late J. Sawal, Aged About 56 Years R/o Mission Compound Jagdalpur, Superintendent And Pastor Incharge, Methodist Church In India Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Priya Mishra, Mr. Nitesh Gupta and Mr. Dinesh Bole, Advocates. For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Palak Dwivedi counsel on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 16.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Priya Mishra, Mr. Nitesh Gupta and Mr. Dinesh Bole, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Palak Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.2/State. 2. The petitioner has been filed this present petition seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2018(Annexure P-1) passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 29/2017, in the interest of Justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 belongs to the Christian community. The instant dispute is with regard to the management of Chandaiya Memorial Church situated at Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). It is submitted that the property on which the Chandaiya Memorial Church is situated, is donated by the Ruler of that area to the Christian community for the purpose of construction of the offering of prayer and for other activities. It is submitted that at present all the members of the Chandaiya Memorial Church are residents of Bastar area and out of the total members about more than 75% of the members are the members of the petitioner and they are properly managing the Church and other day to day religious activities. It is submitted that in the year 2014 the then 3 Pastor Mr. Κ.Κ. Daan had acted illegally and tried to misuse the immovable properties of the church and therefore he has been ousted from the management of the church and the properties and the petitioner and other members of the management committee took over the possession. It is also submitted that looking to the dispute between the said two groups Union Bank of India where the account of the church is maintain has freezed the bank account and had intimated this fact on 11.02.2014. It is submitted that the office of the Methodist Church in India at Jabalpur had also removed the members of the church who are about 73 in numbers vide resolution dated 07.10.2014 on the ground that they are forcefully possessing the property of the church and also acting contrary to the clauses mentioned in the Book of Discipline. K.K. Daan the then Pastor had reported the matter to the concerned police station with regard to the peace and tranquility and thereafter the Istgasa has been submitted by the concerned police station before the competent authority in the month of August, 2015. It is submitted that the case was transferred to the court of City Magistrate and who after conclusion of the proceedings without considering the applicability of the provisions of Section 145 of Cr.P.C. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case when the cause of action arose in the year 2014 had illegally passed the order in favour of the respondent No. 1 and at the same time had also restrained the petitioner and the group of members of the 4 managing committee who are more than 2000 to enter into the church premises and other properties without deciding the particular date of dispossession. The petitioner thereafter, preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur and the learned revisional Court also not considered and decided the issue with regard to date of dispossession and confirmed the order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the concerned Magistrate. 5. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 5/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court was kind enough to set aside both the orders i.e. the orders passed by the learned revisional court as well as the order passed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.06.2017 and remitted back the case to the learned Magistrate to decide the issue with regard to the possession as provided and required under the provisions of Section 145(4) of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the material available on record. The learned Magistrate after receiving back the case had considered the material available on record and after hearing respective parties have passed the order on 06.10.2017 in which it has been categorically decided the possession and held that the petitioner/ party No. 2 is in possession with regard to the property in dispute. The order of the Magistrate was challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Baster at Jagdalpur by way of filing a revision and the learned revisional Court by impugned order without upsetting the 5 findings recorded with regard to possession of the petitioner and discussing the fact of possession as recorded by the learned Magistrate had held that it has not been decided that who is the legally entitled and elected persons to manage the trust property had set aside the well reasoned order of learned Magistrate which is beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 145(4) of Cr.P.C. The learned revisional Court also held that the evidence of the Revenue Inspector is to be recorded which is a direction in violation of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court in Cr.M.P. No. 521/2017 and an attempt to over reach the order passed by Hon'ble High Court. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts have not considered the provisions of Section 145 of Cr.P.C. in its true perspective and have passed the impugned orders illegally. The learned revisional Court had made a direction for recording fresh evidence of the Revenue Inspector which is in violation of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 521/2017 (Annexure P-13), as the co-ordinate bench of this Court had remanded the case before the Magistrate to decide the case on the basis of material available on record. He further submits that the learned revisional Court committed gross illegality in over reaching the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide Annexure P-13 and therefore the impugned order passed by learned revisional Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The finding arrived by learned 6 revisional Court with regard to the identity of the officials / managing members of the church is beyond the scope of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the impugned order passed by learned revisional Court is bad in law. The revisional Court had not considered and appreciated the findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate and the reasons mentioned in the order for arriving at a finding with regard to possession of the petitioner (party No. 2) over the church properties and had passed the impugned illegal order contrary to the evidence and material available on record. The learned revisional Court had not discussed any issue required to the discuss and decided in the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC and therefore the Impugned order passed by the learned revisional court is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. The learned revisional Court had failed to consider that in the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC only the physical possession on as mentioned in Section 145(4) CrPC is to be considered and decided. The learned revisional Court's finding is with regard to the title which cannot be decided in the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC as the dispute with regard to be title is to be decided only by the competent civil Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that after applying its mind the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar Place- 7 Jagdalpur (C.G.) passed the order dated 26.02.2018 and remitted the matter to the concerned Magistrate. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 9. From perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 belong to the Christian community and the dispute is with regard to the management of Chandaiya Memorial Church situated at Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). The property on which the church is situated was donated by the Ruler of that area to the Christian community and the petitioner and other members of the management committee are currently managing the church and its day-to-day activities. In 2014, the then Pastor Mr. Κ.Κ. Daan was ousted from the management of the church and its properties due to alleged illegal activities. The case has gone through various Court proceedings, including the City Magistrate, Sessions Judge and High Court. The co-ordinate bench of this Court has set aside the orders of the Courts below and remitted the case to the concerned Magistrate to decide on the issue of possession. The Magistrate held that the petitioner is in possession of the property. The revisional Court has not considered and appreciated the findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate and the reasons mentioned in the order for arriving at 8 a finding with regard to the possession of the petitioner (party No.2) over the church properties and had passed the impugned illegal order contrary to the evidence and material available on record. Thus, the present case appears to be a fit case for interference by this Court for exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar Place-Jagdalpur in Criminal Revision No.29/2017 is set aside and the order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the City Magistrate, Jagdalpur in MCRC No.07/2015 is hereby restored. 11. The CrMP is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal