1 2025:CGHC:36660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1823 of 2024 Jivrakhan Lal Gupta S/o Late Kamal Narayan Gupta, aged about 98 years, R/o Ward No. 15, Durjaband Para, Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.), through Power of Attorney Holder Ravishankar Gupta, S/o Shri Jivrakhan Lal Gupta, aged about 52 years, R/o Ward No. 15, Durjaband Para, Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus Nandkishore Halwai S/o Gukul Prasad Halwai R/o Near Old Bus Stand, Pandariya, Tahsil and P.S. Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Case no. 07/2024 arising out of order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the S.D.M, Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Pandariya in Case No. 02/2009. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was being made by the petitioner before the Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) against the respondent as he has forcefully taken possession of his land bearing Khasra No. 160/8 and thereafter Istagasha No. 02/2009 was filed through the concerned Police Station before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Pandariya on which the learned SDM in exercise of the power under Section 145 Cr.P.C. registered the case. Thereafter, final order was passed by the S.D.M on 02.11.2015 in favour of the present petitioner and thereafter the possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner. 3. Against the order of the S.D.M, the respondent preferred Criminal Revision No. 45/2015 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (C.G.) whereby the revision filed by the respondent has been dismissed by the order dated 29.01.2016. The said order of the Revisional Court dated 29.01.2016 was challenged in Cr.M.P No. 158/2016 whereby this Court vide order dated 20.07.2013 has set aside both the orders of the Revisional Court as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the ground that the S.D.M cannot pass any final order without passing preliminary order under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. and the matter was remanded back to the S.D.M. Pandariya for fresh decision. The order passed by this Court dated 20.07.2023 has been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal which eventually came to be dismissed on 09.10.2023. 4. Thereafter, the S.D.M. Pandariya passed a preliminary order under 3 Section 145 (1) of Cr.P.C. on 26.09.2023 regarding possession holding that there is a possibility of breach of public peace and an emergency situation has been created. Therefore, the S.D.M Pandariya directed the parties to appear on 10.10.2023 through their counsel and file their statements along with documents regarding the fact of factual position on the subject matter of dispute. The parties were represented through their counsel before the S.D.M. After hearing both the parties, S.D.M has held that emergency situation arises regarding possession and breach of peace and passed the order in exercise of the power under Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C directing attachment of the properties in dispute and further appointed the Tahsildar as receiver to take care of the properties. 5. The said order of the S.D.M dated 29.02.2024 has been assailed in Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge Kabirdham and it is contended that without there being any emergency situation and without any material the order has been erroneously passed by the S.D.M. By order dated 25.06.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (C.G.) dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Against the said revisional order, this petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Court failed to appreciate the provisions contained in Section 146 (1) of Cr.P.C. and the finding of the Court below is not sustainable. He further submits that the petitioner is already in possession of the disputed land for the last 14 years and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any possibility of breach of peace. He further contends that the order of attachment of property is without any proper material on record. 4 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments of the petitioner and supports the orders passed by the Revisional Court and the S.D.M. 8. This dispute has been going on between the parties since long. Be that as it may, since the matter is pending before the S.D.M, the S.D.M is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. stands disposed of. 10. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge U.K. Raju