[Section 145, Cr.P.C.]
Purpose of proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C. is to prevent breach of peace. Order of attachment and receivership passed without examining witnesses and without giving grounds and reasons for being satisfied with regard to breach of peace, held, void and illegal. Proceedings quashed. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 43 Ali Muhammad.
Object of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is prevention of breach of peace arising in respect of dispute relating to immovable property. Settlement of dispute relating to property which is not likely to lead to breach of peace is within exclusive jurisdiction of civil Court. PLJ 1996 S.C. 1142, Qazi Gran v. Muhammad Jan.
Likelihood of breach of peace. The primary object of this section is to preserve peace. When it is found that there is no likelihood of the peace being disturbed there is no necessity for the Magistrate to continue the proceedings. ILR 21 Cal. 29 Ramchandra v. Manohar.
No apprehension of breach of peace alleged between the parties over an immovable or movable property. Proceedings u/S. 145 Cr.P.C. quashed u/S. 561-A Cr.P.C. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Quetta) 64, Habib Ullah v. Malik Muhammad Hashim etc.
Jurisdiction of the criminal Court cannot be invoked except on the ground of likelihood of breach of peace. AIR 1947 Pesh. 8 Kohat Municipality v. Mst. Piari.
Possession regulated by civil Court, the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. are not maintainable but to avoid the breach of peace proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. can be resorted to. (DB) PLD 1976 Lah. 1378 Anwar Javid etc. v. Ikram-ul-Haq etc.
Possession of property regulated by civil Court, even though by a temporary injunction. Held, matter falls outside jurisdiction of Magistrate u/S. 145, Cr.P.C. (SC) NLR 1985 Cr. 472; Mehr Muhammad Sarwar etc.
Civil suit and section 145, Cr.P.C. Unless civil Court regulates the possession of the disputed property the jurisdiction of Criminal Court is not ousted. Simultaneous proceedings under sections 145 and 107, Cr.P.C. are maintainable. (DB) PLJ 1977 Lah. 246 Anwar Javid etc. v. Ikram-ul-Haq etc.
Proceedings u/S. 145 Cr.P.C. can be quashed only when possession of the disputed property has been regulated by a civil Court, the plea that civil suit is pending regarding the said property is no ground for quashing the said proceedings u/S. 145 Cr.P.C. PLJ 1992 Cr. C. (Kar.) 189, Muhammad Yousaf.
Object of Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. is to enable the executive authority to maintain statut quo till the parties have the matter decided by a civil Court. When there was no immediate likelihood of breach of peace, the proceedings u/S. 145 Cr.P.C. were held to be illegal. PLJ 1996 Cr. C. (Pesh) 1959, Hamid Gul.
Proceedings under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. do not vitiate proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. PLJ 1967 Lah. 577 Ghulam Muhammad v. Muhammad Ismail.
When apprehnsion of breach of peace disappears in proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C, the Court become coram non judice and any order passed is liable to be quashed. PLJ 1975 Cr.C (Kar.) 517 Nawazish Ali. 1975 P Cr.LJ 510.
Proceedings under sections 107 and 145, Cr.P.C. Simultaneous proceedings under both the section are maintainable. (DB) PLD 1977 Lah. 100 Anwar Javid v. Ikramul Haq.
Danger of breach of peace when not exiting ÿany longer during the pendency of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. the Magistrate to close the proceedings when any interested party at any time proves so to the Court. 1975 Cr.LJ 75 Noor Ahmad v. Jamil Ahmad etc.
Inquiry about possession and likelihood of breach of peace in proceeding u/S. 145, Cr.P.C. is necessary; where no such inquiry made proceedings quashed. PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Pesh) 1. Haji Ghulam-ud-Din v. Illa-ud-Din Khan.
Dispute not likely to cause breach of peace does not attract proceedings u/S. 145, Cr.P.C. (SC) NLR 1985 Cr. 774 Fazal Haq etc. v. Muhammad Latif etc.
Continuing danger of breach of peace must exit till passing of final order for enforcing full remedies under section 145, Cr.P.C Magistrate entitled to and as a matter of duty should, cancel preliminary order if danger of further breach of peace no longer exists. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 137 Manzoor Elahi v. Bishambar Das. (Contra). ILR 1938 Lah. 611 Guru Ditta v. (Taja).
No dispute likely to cause breach of peace, held, magistrate has no jurisdiction to make order regarding the property. PLJ 1985 SC 386. Fazal Haq etc. v. Muhammad Latif etc. PLD 1985 SC 294.
Case not emergent and reasons not given for satisfaction that the dispute is likely to cause breach of peace. Attachment of property in such a case is without legal justification. 1970 P. Cr. LJ 693 Muhammad Amin v. Muhammad Jamil.
Dispute about possession of immovable property referred to the police for inquiry. Police reporting no apprehension of breach of peace. Held, Magistrate was not justified in ignoring police report and continuing proceedings without giving his reasons for doing so. PLD 1965 Lah. 312 Shaukat Ali.
Police report about likelihood of breach of peace between two parties. Magistrate has discretion to pass preliminary order without examining any witness. PLD 1964 Lah. 9 Ghulam Mustafa v. Abdul Karim.
Satisfaction of the Magistrate. Mere omission to state grounds upon which Court is satisfied, does not make the order without jurisdiction. (SC 1972 SCMR 562 Sarghan Shan v. Jafar Khan.
Irregular initial order. Initial order of Magistrate not disclosing that he was satisfied that there was apprehension of breach of peace. Order though defective in form is not without jurisdiction. Irregularity does not vitiate proceedings. (SC) 1971 SCMR 245 Noor Muhammad etc. v. Chirag Din etc.
Mere omission by Magistrate to record his satisfaction in proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C that there is likelihood of the breach of peace, does not vitiate the proceedings; it is only an irregularity. PLD 1961 SC 426 relied on. 1975 P. Cr. LJ 80 Muhammad Nawaz v. Ghulam Kadir etc.
Failure to record preliminary order does not invalidate proceedings. Defect is curable under section 537, Cr. P.C. PLD 1960 Pesh. 57 State Muhammad Azim.
Company's immovable property. The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed under section 145, Cr.P.C in a dispute about Company's immovable property. Matters could only be resolved by obtaining order of company Judge. 1970 P Cr. LJ 847 Asian Mutual Insurance Co. v. Naseer Ahmed, Khara.
Dispute over possession of business does not constitute essential elements of Sec. 145 (1), Cr.P.C. held, proceedings against applicant and his wife are a clear abuse of the process of the Court. PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Kar.) 448 Muhammad Iqbal Jaffar.
When possession admitted of disputed property irrespective of the title of the property proceedings quashed. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 59 Iftikhar v. Hussain.
Possession means actual physial possession even though wrongful e.g., that of a recent trespasser in actual possession at the time the proceedings are initiated under section 145, Cr.P.C. (FB) AIR 1928 Cal. 610 Agni Kumar Das. v. Mumtaz-ud-Din.
Permissive possession. The possession of an agent or servant which is permissive cannot give a party to proceedings locus standi as against his principal. AIR 1940 Sind 61 Rahim Ali Shah v. Emperor.
Fact of possession Material date for determining the fact of possession of one party or the other is the date of preliminary order. PLD 1955 Pesh. 31 Muhammad Amir.
Joint possession. Section 145, Cr.P.C is applicable to a dispute regarding joint possession of immovable property. (FB) PLD 1953 BJ 59 Karim Hayat v. Ahmed; AIR 1947 Lah. 227 Wazir v. Rawel. (Contra. AIR 1945 Oudh 62 Bisram v. Kamta).
When the possession is joint, and the Court is not is position to make an order for exclusive possession in favour of any party, the proceedings can be terminated under section 145 (1). (DB) 47 Cr.LJ 78 Kodan Mal v. Emperor 221 IC 112.
Party not in possession within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 145, Cr.P.C. Order of the magistrate under sub-section (6) held without jurisdiction. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 95 Sultan Muhammad v. Allah Ditta etc.
None of the parties found to be in possession by the Magistrate in porceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Magistrate is bound to proceed in the terms of section 146 (1), Cr.P.C. (SC) 1972 599 Ghulam Yahyah etc. v. Ghulam Sadiq etc.
Possession of party established. The Magistrate has no jurisdiction to enter into question of title and continue proceedings. PLD 1955 Lah. 312 Shaukat Ali.
Dispute relating to right to possess is as much covered by section 145, Cr.P.C. as dispute about actual possession of immovable property. Attachment of movables like horses and cattle is not legal. Order attaching grain, wheat and cash by original order under section 145, Cr.P.C. is valid. (DB) PLD 1949 Lah. 397 Fateh Muhammad Khan v. Crown.
Possession to follow title in dispute of immovable property, in absence of any other evidence. Per revenue record disputed land recorded as khud-kasht for the last 15/16 years. Possession of landlord held, correctly declared. 1978 P.Cr.LJ 431 Shahzad etc v. Shams-ud-Din.
Possession and title. The jurisdiction of Faujdari Courts is confined to possession and does not extend to enquiring into the title of the landed property. (PC) 7 MIA 283 Maharaja Maheshwar Singh v. The Bengal Government.
Proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. essentially of civil nature. Principle that if a plea is not taken in plaint or written statement a party cannot be permitted to lead any evidence in the regard applies to proceedings under this section. PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 590 Shahzada etc. v. Malik Shams-ud-Din etc.
Dispute about control and management of an institution rather than about possession of building in which institution is run is not dispute regarding land. PLD 1952 Lah. 639 Jalil Javid v. Muhammad Sharif."
Dispute concerning film to be exhibited in cinema and not cinema building not covered by section 145, Cr.P.C. PLD 1950 Lah. 194 Najam-ul-Hussain v. Crown.
Magistrate's jurisdiction not ousted merely because civil suit in regard to property has already been filed or a temporary injunction not to interfere in the property has been issued against a party. PLD 1959 Lah. 264 Dilbar Khan.
Interim order by civil Court: When a civil Court has regulated the possession by an interim order the jurisdiction of the Magistrate disappears 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1259 Mst. Asfa Sultana.
Possession regulated by a civil Court already, the matter goes out of the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under section 145, Cr.P.C. PLJ 1985 SC 540. Mehr Muhammad Sarwar.
Proceedings u/S. 145 Cr.P.C. can be quashed only when possession of disputed property has been regulated by a civil Court, the plea that civil suit is pending regarding the said property is no ground for quashing the said proceedings u/S. 145 Cr.P.C. PLJ 1992 Cr.C. (Kar.) 189, Muhammad Yousaf.
Interim injunction. Where the opponent party instituted a suit in the civil Court and obtained an interim injunction against the applicant restraining her from taking possession of the disputed property, it would be unfair to allow the opponent all the advantage of his forcible and wrongful dispossession, merely because he has since the Magistrate's order gone to the Civil Court. (DB) AIR 1926 Bom. 91 27 Cr.LJ. 662.
Decree of civil Court. Previous decree of a civil Court is no bar to the proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C. and does not oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. (FB) 56 Cal. 290 Agni Kumar v. Mumtaz-ud-Din.
" The weight to be attached to the previous decision of a civil or criminal Court is for the consideration of the Magistrate. (FB) 17 Cr.LJ 369 Parmeshwar v. Kailas Patia.
Proceedings of Civil Court. Proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. transitory in nature. Magistrate ceases to deal with question of possession of disputed land as soon as civil Court is seized of matter. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 439 Ghulam Maseeh v. Abdul Rehman. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 730 Razi Ahmad v. Uzma Akbari.
Stay order by civil Court vacated. when possession of a party is regulated by Civil Court stay order, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. are not competent, subsequent order of civil Court doe snot review the criminal proceedings with retrospective effect. 1975 P.Cr.LJ M. 7 Asghar Bashir v. Hussain Khan.
Status quo by Civil Court does not render proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. invalid about the land in dispute, against persons not party to civil suit. PLD 1970 SC 470. Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz considered. P.Cr.LJ 77.
When possession of immovable property not regulated by Civil Court proceedings u/S. 145, Cr.P.C. were held to be competent. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Kar.) 262 Lt. Col. G.H. Nizam-ud-Din v. Syed Abdul Rehman.
Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to attach property under section 145 (4), Cr.P.C. is ousted where property is already subject-matter of a civil suit and the civil Court has ordered status quo or made some order regulating its possession. (SC) PLD 1970 SC 470 Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz (SC) 1971 SCMR 449 Shera v. Fatima.
Attachment of receiver. Person appointed to be incharge of the disputed property is not a "receiver" as used in CPC or under section 146, Cr.P.C. Misdescription of such a person as "receiver" cannot invalidate order of appointing a person to manage the attached property. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 77 Muhammad Wajid Ali v. Abdul Hadi etc. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 596.
Attachment. The purpose of a civil Court attachment is quite different from an attachment under section 145(4), Cr.P.C. The Magistrate acting under section 145, Cr.P.C. has nothing to do with the title he is concerned with maintaining actual possession with a view to prevent breach of peace. (DB) AIR 1943 Pat. 124 Nandkishor.
Attachment of property under section 145, Cr.P.C. is justifiable only in a case where none of the parties is found in possession two months prior to the passing of preliminary order or the magistrate is unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties was in possession on the relevant date. After attachment the Court may refer the parties to a competent Court 1985 SCMR 1235 Mirza Abdul Razak v. Barkat Ali etc.
Order for sealing the premises made without making a preliminary order indicating existence of emergency bad in law and set aside. PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 5, Mrs. Sahira Almas v. Gulbaz Khan etc. PLD 1974 Lah. 289.
Sealing of premises in dispute can be done by the order of Magistrate seized of the case and not by the police. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 59 Iftikhar Hussain.
Revision. It is the Magistrate alone who is to be satisfied one way or the other the High Court in revision cannot interfere with his decision. It is only if the finding of the Magistrate as to possession is based on no material at all that the High Court can interfere with his order is revision. AIR 1947 Lah. 227 Wazir v. Rawel; AIR 1939 Lah. 108 Guru Ditta v. Taja.
Property attached for 9 years under section 145, Cr.P.C. held, order could not be allowed to remain in force as no emergency could remain in existence for so long. Order set aside, 1977 P.Cr.LJ 449. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Hanif.
Agents or managers in possession of the property in dispute can competently maintain the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the owners. (SC) PLD 1977 SC 384. Shahzada etc. v. Shams-ud-Din etc. PLJ 1977 SC 259.