MOHAMMAD RAMJAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the instant Criminal Misc. Petitions, challenge has been made to the order dtd. 26/5/2023 whereby the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, in Cases No. 01/2023 and 02/2023 initiated an inquiry under Sec. 145 of the Cr.P.C. and passed an order under Sec. 146 (1) of the Cr.P.C. thereby appointed a receiver regarding attachment of property in question as well as against the orders dtd. 26/6/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions No. 2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision Petitions No. 41/2023 and 42/2023 whereby the revision petitions filed by the petitioners have been rejected.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, the facts necessary for disposal of the appeals would be that the petitioners are the Khatedars-tenants of the land in question. It is revealing that a certain part of total land was purchased by the respondents- Shewta Goyal and Leeja Goyal from some of the Khatedars vide sale deeds dtd. 30/1/2019. It is further revealing that the land in question had not been divided between the parties. It is further revealing that the part of the land which was sold to the respondents Leeja Goyal and Shewta Goyal was under hypothecation with the Bank and the installments were due. It is further revealing that the buyer-respondents herein wanted to take possession over the land in question but since the loanee had not deposited the entire due amount against the bank loan, therefore, FIRs in this regard got lodged. It would be pertinent to note here that before initiating the proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. or moving an application under Sec. 146(1) of the Cr.P.C., criminal cases suggesting eminent danger of breach of peace or like circumstance to presume instant threat to public peace and tranquility had not been lodged. The law in respect of proceeding under Ss. 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. is no more res-integra that before initiating any proceeding under Ss. 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. there has to be a serious question of possession and a situation where it is not comprehensible as to which party was in possession of the land in question at the relevant point of time or the circumstances suggesting that parties are bent upon to take forcible possession of the immovable property and therefore, there is an eminent danger to public peace and tranquility. The law in this regard has been discussed and dealt with by this Court in the matter of Ashoknath Chela Kevalnath Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 16/11/2022. The relevant part of the order is being reproduced as under:-

(3.) After making anxious consideration of the submissions made at the Bar and after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position in this regard, this Court feels that infact no danger of peace or apprehension of affray had been noticed and no eminent circumstances were appearing which may persuade the SHO of the Police Station concerned to move a complaint for initiation of proceedings under Ss. 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. Simply, mentioning the word "emergent circumstance" or 'eminent danger of breach of peace and tranquility' would not be sufficient enough rather the apprehension is required to be well founded based on certain facts. It can be seen from the facts and circumstances of each individual case and the same may vary case to case. Here, in these cases, there was no blood shed or no counter criminal cases got registered with regard to possession of the land. On the contrary, it is reflecting that only a particular portion of land was purchased by the respondents in the Year 2019 but they could not get possession of the same because the said land was under hypothetication with the Bank. It is further revealing that when the due installments were not deposited by the debtor, the buyer went to lodge an FIR in this regard, however, nowhere it is averred that the buyer had obtained physical possession over the land in question. Although, the opinion of this Court is tentative for the above aspect and for final adjudication, this Court left it open for the Trial Court to decide the same but at the same time, this fact cannot be ignored that even no proceedings under Ss. 107, 116, 151 and 154 of the Cr.P.C. got initiated at the instance of any of the party so as to suggest apprehension of public peace and tranquility.