Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8589 (UTT)

Usha Mittal v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-02-11

Ashish Naithani

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ashish Naithani, J. 1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicants seeking quashing and setting aside of the judgment and final order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2025, whereby the revision filed by the Applicants against the order of the City Magistrate, Dehradun dated 23.11.2024 came to be dismissed. 2. The dispute pertains to an immovable property situated at Race Course, Dehradun, which has remained in the ownership and possession of the Applicants’ family since 1962. Over time, four residential structures were constructed on the said property, which were used both as family residences and for lawful tenancy purposes. 3. On 11.10.2012, following a violent incident involving Respondent No. 4 and his associates, the learned City Magistrate, Dehradun initiated proceedings under Sections 145/146(1) CrPC and sealed one house forming part of the larger property, registering the matter as Case No. 19 of 2012. The remaining structures continued in peaceful possession of the Applicants and their tenants. 4. The Applicants’ predecessor-in-interest, Late Shri Subhash Chandra Mittal, thereafter instituted Original Suit No. 217 of 2013 before the Civil Court at Dehradun seeking permanent injunction in respect of the subject property. During the pendency of the civil proceedings, this Court, in C482 No. 694 of 2013, repeatedly directed maintenance of status quo, culminating in an interim injunction order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, which continues to operate till date. 5. In view of the subsisting civil injunction and status quo orders, this Court ultimately dismissed the proceedings arising out of Section 145 CrPC as infructuous on 24.09.2024, a fact admittedly within the knowledge of all concerned authorities including the City Magistrate and the Station House Officer, Nehru Colony, Dehradun. 6. Despite such dismissal and in alleged disregard of the subsisting civil court injunction, Respondent No. 4 moved an application on 23.11.2024 before the City Magistrate for release of the sealed property. On the very same day, without issuing notice to or hearing the Applicants, the City Magistrate ordered release of the sealed house in favour of Respondent No. 4, pursuant to which physical possession was taken on 24.11.2024, accompanied by alleged vandalism and breaking of seals in the presence of police personnel. 7. On the very same day, without issuing notice to or hearing the Applicants, the City Magistrate ordered release of the sealed house in favour of Respondent No. 4, pursuant to which physical possession was taken on 24.11.2024, accompanied by alleged vandalism and breaking of seals in the presence of police personnel. 7. Aggrieved, the Applicants preferred Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2025 before the Sessions Court at Dehradun. The said revision was ultimately dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge on 09.07.2025, affirming the order of the City Magistrate, which has led to the filing of the present application invoking the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that the impugned order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the City Magistrate, Dehradun is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the proceedings under Sections 145/146(1) CrPC, registered as Case No. 19 of 2012, had already been rendered infructuous by this Court in C482 No. 694 of 2013 by order dated 24.09.2024. It was urged that once this Court itself declared the said proceedings infructuous on account of the subsisting civil court injunction, no authority survived with the Magistrate to pass any consequential or substantive order in respect of the same proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the Applicants further contended that the interim injunction order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No. 217 of 2013, directing maintenance of status quo over the subject property, continues to operate till date. It was argued that the moment a competent civil court assumes seisin of the dispute relating to possession and grants an injunction, the summary jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC must yield to the civil court’s determination. According to the Applicants, the Magistrate was duty-bound to respect the civil court’s order and to treat the property as custodia legis until final adjudication of the civil suit. 11. According to the Applicants, the Magistrate was duty-bound to respect the civil court’s order and to treat the property as custodia legis until final adjudication of the civil suit. 11. It was also urged on behalf of the Applicants that the order dated 23.11.2024 stands vitiated for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as it was passed without issuing any notice to or affording any opportunity of hearing to the Applicants, despite the fact that they were the undisputed legal heirs of Late Shri Subhash Chandra Mittal and had already been substituted as parties in earlier proceedings with the knowledge of the State and private respondents. Learned counsel submitted that an order affecting possession and civil rights, passed behind the back of the affected parties, is void ab initio. 12. Learned counsel for the Applicants further submitted that the application filed by Respondent No. 4 and the order passed by the City Magistrate are both dated 23.11.2024, reflecting undue and unseemly haste, notwithstanding that the Magistrate had already been informed by letter dated 04.10.2024 about the subsisting orders of this Court and the civil court. It was argued that the subsequent breaking of seals and taking over of physical possession on 24.11.2024, allegedly in the presence of police personnel, was a direct fallout of the illegal order and demonstrates a colourable exercise of power. 13. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the revisional court failed to address the core jurisdictional issue, namely, whether any proceedings under Sections 145/146 CrPC survived at all after having been rendered infructuous by this Court. It was argued that the revisional court also failed to examine the binding effect of the civil court injunction and the admitted lack of notice and hearing to the Applicants, thereby rendering the revisional judgment unsustainable. 14. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is extraordinary and supervisory in nature and ought not to be exercised as a substitute for a second revision. It was contended that the City Magistrate acted within the scope of powers under Sections 145/146 CrPC to prevent breach of peace and that the mere pendency of civil proceedings does not automatically oust the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. It was contended that the City Magistrate acted within the scope of powers under Sections 145/146 CrPC to prevent breach of peace and that the mere pendency of civil proceedings does not automatically oust the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. It was further argued that allegations regarding breaking of seals, vandalism, or excess by police raise disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 15. This Court upon due consideration at this juncture observes that the controversy, though presented as a challenge to concurrent orders, in essence raises a foundational jurisdictional question, namely, whether the proceedings under Sections 145/146(1) CrPC, registered as Case No. 19 of 2012, continued to subsist in law after this Court had rendered them infructuous, and if not, whether the City Magistrate could have exercised any further authority in respect thereof. 16. From the record, it is manifest that the proceedings under Sections 145/146(1) CrPC were initiated in the year 2012 and remained pending for a considerable period of time. During the interregnum, the dispute between the parties travelled to the civil court, where Original Suit No. 217 of 2013 came to be instituted, and culminated in an interim injunction order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, directing maintenance of status quo with respect to the subject property. The said injunction has admittedly never been vacated, modified, or stayed and continues to operate till date. 17. It is equally undisputed that this Court, while dealing with C482 No. 694 of 2013 arising out of the very same proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, repeatedly directed maintenance of status quo and, ultimately, by order dated 24.09.2024, dismissed the said proceedings as infructuous precisely on account of the subsisting civil court injunction. The dismissal was not procedural or technical in nature but was founded on the principle that once a competent civil court is seized of the dispute relating to possession and has granted an injunction, the summary jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC must give way to the civil court’s adjudication. 18. In this backdrop, the submission of the Applicants that the proceedings under Sections 145/146 CrPC had lost their legal efficacy cannot be brushed aside. Once this Court itself declared the said proceedings infructuous, the proceedings stood exhausted in law. 18. In this backdrop, the submission of the Applicants that the proceedings under Sections 145/146 CrPC had lost their legal efficacy cannot be brushed aside. Once this Court itself declared the said proceedings infructuous, the proceedings stood exhausted in law. This Court is unable to accept the proposition that, notwithstanding such declaration, the Magistrate could still exercise residual jurisdiction to pass an order affecting possession. Jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC is preventive and summary in nature, and it cannot be exercised in a vacuum or after the very proceedings have been rendered non est. 19. The Court also finds substance in the contention that the civil court’s injunction dated 27.10.2017 had overriding primacy. It is a settled position that proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are not intended to supplant the jurisdiction of civil courts but only to prevent breach of peace until the parties obtain appropriate relief from a competent forum. Once the civil court had passed an injunction directing status quo and had thereby assumed control over the question of possession, the role of the Magistrate was limited to ensuring that such status quo was not disturbed. Any order directing release of possession in favour of one party, in the teeth of a subsisting civil injunction, amounts to an impermissible encroachment upon the civil court’s domain. 20. Equally troubling is the manner in which the order dated 23.11.2024 came to be passed. The record indicates that the Applicants were the undisputed legal heirs of Late Shri Subhash Chandra Mittal and that their substitution had already been recorded in earlier proceedings before this Court with the knowledge and consent of the State as well as the private respondents. Despite this, no notice was issued to the Applicants, nor were they afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing an order which directly affected possession of the property. An order having serious civil consequences, passed without adherence to the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained and is vitiated on that ground alone. 21. The sequence of events further reinforces the Applicants’ grievance. Respondent No. 4’s application seeking release of the sealed property and the order of the City Magistrate are both dated 23.11.2024. This assumes significance in light of the fact that the City Magistrate had already been apprised by the Applicants through a written communication dated 04.10.2024 regarding the subsisting orders of this Court and the civil court. Respondent No. 4’s application seeking release of the sealed property and the order of the City Magistrate are both dated 23.11.2024. This assumes significance in light of the fact that the City Magistrate had already been apprised by the Applicants through a written communication dated 04.10.2024 regarding the subsisting orders of this Court and the civil court. The subsequent breaking of seals and taking over of physical possession on the very next day, i.e., 24.11.2024, allegedly in the presence of police personnel, appears to be a direct consequence of the impugned order. While disputed questions relating to vandalism or excess may lie beyond the immediate scope of the present proceedings, the Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that such consequences flowed from an order whose jurisdictional legitimacy itself is under serious cloud. 22. Turning to the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, this Court finds that the revisional court failed to engage with the core jurisdictional issue raised before it. The revisional court did not examine whether any proceedings under Sections 145/146 CrPC survived after they had been rendered infructuous by this Court, nor did it examine the legal effect of the subsisting civil court injunction. The revisional court also failed to address the admitted position that the Applicants were not heard prior to passing of the Magistrate’s order. The omission to consider these foundational aspects amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the revisional court. 23. As regards the objection raised by the State and the private respondents that the present petition amounts to a second revision in disguise, this Court is unable to agree. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is not being invoked to re-appreciate evidence or to substitute factual findings, but to correct a manifest jurisdictional error and a clear abuse of process, which strikes at the very root of the proceedings. Where an order is shown to be without jurisdiction and in derogation of binding judicial orders, the bar against a second revision cannot operate as a shield. ORDER For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed. Where an order is shown to be without jurisdiction and in derogation of binding judicial orders, the bar against a second revision cannot operate as a shield. ORDER For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed. The order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the City Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No. 19 of 2012 under Sections 145/146(1) CrPC and the judgment and final order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2025 are hereby quashed and set aside. The interim injunction/order of status quo dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No. 217 of 2013 shall continue to operate and bind the parties until varied or vacated by the competent civil court. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the legality of the impugned criminal proceedings and shall not affect the merits of the pending civil suit. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.