[2026:RJ-JP:8086] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 857/2013 1. Dhapu W/o Shri Maddudas, 2. Shanti D/o Shri Maddudas R/o Tindu at present residing at Khedli Kalan, Tehsil and District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Hansraj R/o Tindu, Tehsil and District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. 2. Madho S/o Shri Gopal R/o Tindu, Tehsil and District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. 3. Hanuman, 4. Chotu, 5. Galya 6. Pappu Respondents no.3 to 6 S/os of Madho R/o Tindu, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur. 7. Tehsildar Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur, Raj. 8. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Harshita Sharma for Dr. Mahesh Sharma For Respondent(s) For State : : Mr. Tarun Jain Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 20/02/2026 1. Present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed challenging order dated 21.02.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, whereby revision petition preferred by Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 was allowed and order dated 01.02.2013, passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chouth Ka Barwada, Sawai Madhopur, in proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., was set aside. [2026:RJ-JP:8086] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-857/2013] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a revenue suit in respect of ancestral land of petitioners has been pending since 1998. It was contended that on 09.07.2012, a law and order situation arose when respondents attempted to dispossess petitioners from the land in question. In order to prevent breach of peace, an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed. Learned SDM, vide order dated 01.02.2013, allowed said application and appointed Tehsildar, Chouth Ka Barwada, as Receiver of the land in question. 3. Said order was challenged by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 by filing a revision petition, which was allowed by learned Sessions Judge, thereby directing receiver to hand over possession of land to the person from whom possession had been taken. 4. Challenging said revisional order, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that fundamental aspects of the case as well as the findings of SDM were not properly considered by learned Revisional Court. It was contended that facts and circumstances of present case clearly warranted the exercise of powers under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. to prevent breach of peace, and learned Revisional Court wrongly interfered with the order of SDM. It was further argued that the findings recorded by Revisional Court are contrary to settled position of law and suffer from illegality and arbitrariness, thus warranting interference by this Court. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that learned Revisional Court rightly considered the facts in light of mandatory [2026:RJ-JP:8086] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-857/2013] requirements for invoking Section 145 Cr.P.C. It was argued that there was no material on record to establish the existence of a real apprehension of breach of peace; therefore, order passed by SDM was erroneous and was rightly set aside. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Since the issue pertains to exercise of powers under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., it is necessary to examine whether the statutory requirements for exercising power under said sections were being complied with. Relevant provisions under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. are quoted below:- "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)… (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. [2026:RJ-JP:8086] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-857/2013] (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, peruse 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 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 subsection (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)… [2026:RJ-JP:8086] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-857/2013] (8)… (9)… (10)… 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, 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." [2026:RJ-JP:8086] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-857/2013] 8. A perusal of the order passed by learned SDM reveals that a revenue dispute was pending between the parties and the allegation therein was that opposite party was preventing complainants from carrying out agricultural activities upon the land in question. On the basis of these allegations, learned SDM recorded that until the revenue dispute was finally adjudicated, a situation of breach of peace may arise at the site. On this observation, learned SDM appointed a Receiver vide order dated 01.02.2013. 9. Learned Revisional Court, after examining mandatory requirements of Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., recorded a categorical finding that learned SDM failed to ensure complaince with Sections 145(1), 145(3), 145(4) and 146(1) Cr.P.C. Revisional court further noted that as per police report dated 11.12.2012 submitted by SHO, Police Station Maantown, Sawai Madhopur, Respondent No. 2 was in possession of the land in question, was carrying out agricultural activities thereon, and was recorded as khatedar of said land. Revisional court specifically observed that no finding was recorded regarding the existence of any real and imminent apprehension of breach of peace. In such circumstances, the exercise of power under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was held to be unjustified. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any perversity, manifest illegality, or jurisdictional error in impugned order dated 21.02.2013 passed by revisional court that would warrant interference by this Court. Moreover, present [2026:RJ-JP:8086] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-857/2013] criminal miscellaneous petition was filed in the year 2013 and no interim order has been passed by this Court in the last thirteen years since. Consequently, it cannot be presumed that any apprehension of breach of peace survives as of today. 11. In view of the above and considering the merits of the case, no interference by this Court is called for. 12. Accordingly, present criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J Arun/13