Shri Minondro Arengh [Petitioner] Vs. Talika T. Sangma [ Respondent]
Crl. Rev. P. No. 6 of 2022
(Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge)
Facts: By this Criminal Revision, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 01/2021 u/s 145 Cr.PC by which the disputed land was ordered to be attached u/s 146 (1) Cr.PC.
Issue: What must be established before passing an attachment order under section 145 Cr.P.C.?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:
Mr. P.R. Paske, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.PC was initiated by the Executive Magistrate on the basis of the report of apprehension of breach of peace between the parties herein concerning landed property filed by the police. He further submits that the order of attachment was necessitated because of the existing situation and passing of the earlier order dated 21.02.2020 concerning boundary dispute between the parties by the revenue authority of the GHADC. He submits that taking into consideration the factual background, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and this instant criminal revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
Held: The court allowed the present petition and held that, “There must be existence of situation as contemplated under Section 145(1) Cr.PC before any valid order of attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr.PC can be made. It follows that there must be existence of situation over possession of disputed land which may cause breach of peace between the parties prior to any order of attachment of disputed property is made. If there is no direct evidence of any likelihood of breach of peace, the inability of the Magistrate concerned to come to a finding as to which party is in possession of the disputed land, cannot be sole ground for passing of order of attachment. In the instant case, even though the learned Executive Magistrate in the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 has recorded his inability to come to a conclusion as to which party is in actual possession, the order is silent as to the question of likelihood of breach of peace. There is no finding that the continuation of the existing situation between the parties would result in creation of breach of peace between the parties. In such a situation, the impugned order cannot be sustained.”
