SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when a civil suit is pending before the civil court. I am the owner of a house which I purchased in 2020. After purchase of that flat one person namely Pawan came and claimed that the property belongs to him. I produced him sale deed and other documents like electricity connection, water tax receipts etc to prove that I am the owner of this flat. But he denied and continuously claimed that he is the owner. I saw his intention that he is trying to interfere in my property. I immediately filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction in the civil suit. After some time when he came to know that I have filed a civil suit and a copy of it was served on his address, he filed a case before the SDM under section 145 crpc and property was attached by the order of the SDM. Now the SDM is compelling me to vacate the house. I am very tense because the opposite party is trying to evict me from my own property. A revision application has been filed by me to the Commissioner.

Asked from: Bihar

The order passed by the SDM (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) appears to be erroneous and without jurisdiction. When a civil suit regarding the same property is pending before a competent civil court, the SDM has no authority to entertain the matter or pass any order under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The SDM can interfere only when there is a likelihood of breach of peace arising from a dispute concerning immovable property, and even then, the applicant must be in possession of the disputed property. In this case, the applicant who moved the application under Section 145 CrPC is not in possession of the property. Therefore, the SDM had no legal power to pass an order under Section 145 CrPC.

Under such circumstances, a revision petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Since the proceeding arises under the provisions of the CrPC, the appropriate remedy is to file a petition before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the SDM’s order.

In Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey, AIR 2000 SC 1504, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a civil suit concerning the same property is pending before the competent civil court, no order can be passed under Section 145 CrPC.

In light of the above judgment, the order passed by the SDM is liable to be quashed. Therefore, it is advisable not to press the revision petition and instead immediately file a petition before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending in the civil court. 

Related: Executive magistrate passed order under section 145 crpc however dispute has decided by the civil court

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

Produce Pendrive as Evidence: Legal Process Explained

Legal experts clarify that digital evidence, such as a pen drive, can be produced even at an advanced stage of a criminal trial under Section 294 of the CrPC. If a trial court rejects such material evidence based on timing, the defendant may challenge the order in the High Court to ensure a fair trial and just adjudication.

Remedy after dismissal of criminal revision by high court

Following the dismissal of a criminal revision by the High Court, the primary legal remedy is filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court under Article 136. This summary outlines critical grounds for an SLP, such as lack of evidence or unreasoned orders, helping individuals understand their final options in the Indian judicial system.