1 2025:CGHC:8176 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 722 of 2018 Baldev Singh S/o Late Preetam Singh Malva Aged About 76 Years R/o- Malva Market, G.E. Road, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Harvinder Singh S/o Amrik Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o- Behind Auto Stores, G.E. Road, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Collector, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 17.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.2/State. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 22.02.2017, in the interest of justice accordingly.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that due to breach of peace on account of dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 regarding 6 shops situated at behind Bhilai Auto Stores, G.E. Road, Durg, the Station House Incharge, Police Station, Mohan Nagar, Durg, has submitted an Ishtagasha before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Durg and on the basis of said Ishtagash, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Durg has initiated proceedings and registered Criminal Case No. 2940/2012 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The notices were issued to the parties for their appearance and for submitting documents and evidences on their behalf. Both the parities i.e. petitioner and respondent submitted their reply before the learned Magistrate and also submitted the documents and adduced evidence. On the basis of material available on record, vide order dated 30.04.2015, the learned Magistrate has passed final order and held that the respondent No. 1 is the owner of the disputed shops and he is in possession of same, therefore restricted the petitioner from interfering into the possession of respondent No. 1 over the disputed shops. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2015, the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Seventh 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.02.2017, whereby affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 30.04.2015. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent no. 2 have already been settled their dispute amicably, outside of Court, without any fear or pressure. Both the learned courts have failed to appreciate that the respondent no. 1 has not adduced any documentary evidence regarding his ownership and title over the disputed shops. Even the respondent no. 1 has not adduced any document relating to registry of disputed shops or rent agreement and without such documents, the learned Magistrate has committed grave error of law in declaring the possession of respondent no. 1 over the disputed shops. Both the learned courts have also failed to appreciate that the Trust namely Laxmi Narayan Killa Mandir Trust, Durg has issued free hold lease in favour of petitioner and on the basis of said lease, the petitioner has constructed the shops in question and the dispute relating to disputed shop is between the trust and petitioner, in which, there is no need to interfere by the respondent no. 1. The learned Magistrate has recorded a finding in his order that the father of respondent no. 1 was sought permission from the petitioner for living in the disputed shops and after the permission of petitioner, the father of respondent no. 1 was using the disputed shops, in such condition, the petitioner is actual 4 possession holder of the disputed shops. Further, both the learned courts have failed to appreciate that the petitioner has applied for permission for construction of shops before the Municipal Corporation, Durg and after obtaining necessary permission in the year 1989, by paying entire tax, the petitioner has constructed shops and have also failed to appreciate that the petitioner has also made complaint before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mohan Nagar, Durg stating that the respondent no. 1 and his family members have legally possessed the shops of petitioner and on the basis of complaint of petitioner, the offences under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 of IPC were registered against the respondent no. 1 and his family members. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the matter is regarding Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the learned SDM, Durg City, District Durg vide order dated 30.04.2015 has considered all the facts and evidences and came to the conclusion that, the Respondent No. 1 has been in possession of the disputed property prior to 07.11.2012 and in proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973, it is the possession which has to be considered while passing the order, therefore, the order is within the four corners of the allowed limits and the instant criminal petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the matter, after due examination and also examining the evidences, the learned Courts have passed 5 the order impugned reasons mentioning therein. The impugned order passed by the judicial authorities in judicial capacity and the same is well reasoned order based on the findings and reasoning mentioned therein, therefore, the Respondents/State is unable to comment upon a judicial order, thus, there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the Answering Respondents authority, therefore, the instant Petition is vague, baseless and devoid of merits, thus, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned trial Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner observing that taking into consideration the provisions of Section 145 of the CrPC, it is clear that the possession of Harvinder Singh is much prior to the date of the preliminary order passed in this case and he has not forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed Baldev Singh Malwa, rather he has been in peaceful possession of the disputed shops since before 1990. Further, it is clear from the observation of the case that a dispute is being created by both the parties by the Baldev Singh Malwa by interfering in the possession of Harvinder Singh, due to which there is a possibility of breach of peace. On this basis, this application was submitted by the Police Station Incharge Mohan Nagar under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court further found possession of Harvinder Singh on 06 shops adjoining the 6 wall of the residence of Harvinder Singh in GE Road Durg behind Bhilai Auto Stores is proved. Therefore, under section 145 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Harvinder Singh was declared in possession of the disputed land and Baldev Singh Malwa was ordered that unless an eviction order is passed by a competent court against Harvinder Singh in due course of law, Baldev Singh Malwa will not interfere in his possession on the disputed land. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein / Baldev Singh Malwa preferred revision against the revision Court, which was also dismissed by the learned revisional Court affirming the order passed by the learned trial Court holding that revisionist/ Baldev Singh Malwa has claimed ownership of the disputed property on the basis of free leasehold and respondent / Harvinder Singh has stated that he does not have any title documents, but as has been held earlier that under section 145 CrPC, the person in physical possession of the disputed property at the relevant time has to be determined and consideration of the merits of the legal basis of the said possession is not required at that time. In such a situation, the revisionist's/ Baldev Singh Malwa’s ground is not applicable within the limited scope of this case. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also considering the finding recorded by the revisional Court while affirming the order of the learned trial Court, 7 I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the revisional Court. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil