P&H: Refuses to quash S.145 CrPC proceedings despite civil suit and status quo order

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 29 Jul 2026
Headnotes

(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.145 — Proceedings u/s.145 are preventive in nature and do not confer jurisdiction on the Executive Magistrate to adjudicate title or finally determine the rights of the parties over the disputed property — Object is to preserve public peace where...

(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.145 — Civil court proceedings — Mere interim order directing parties to maintain status quo regarding possession does not amount to an adjudication of possession and does not completely exclude the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate u/s.145. (Para 7)

(iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.145 — Civil Court Parallel proceedings — Merely because civil suit is pending would not render proceedings u/s.145 non-maintainable where civil court has not adjudicated question of possession and there exists material indicating likelihood of breach of peace. (Para 8)

(iv) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.145 — Demarcation report — An order directing Patwari to submit report regarding demarcation of property neither decides title nor confers possession upon either party and does not finally determine the rights of either party. (Para 9)

(v) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.145 — Status quo order — An order of status quo passed by Civil Court does not amount to an adjudication regarding possession and where there exists an apprehension of breach of peace, the Executive Magistrate is not denuded...


Facts of the Case

P&H: Refuses to quash S.145 CrPC proceedings despite civil suit and status quo order

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash preventive proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a property dispute, holding that a civil court’s interim status quo order does not amount to a final determination of possession.

The petition was filed by Bijender Singh Jhakhar and others, who challenged a kalandra and complaint initiated in relation to a plot in Gurugram. They argued that one of the petitioners had purchased the property through a sale deed, taken possession, raised construction and obtained electricity connection, while the respondent claimed ownership and had already filed a civil...

Login required to open full judgment PDF
Login to Access File