Whether finding given by court in proceeding U/s 145 of CRPC is binding on civil court?

The   proceedings   under   Section   145   of   the   Criminal
Procedure Code are by way of stop gap or interim arrangement
till the competent  Civil Court is approached by  either of the
party for to decide the issue of possession of the suit one way or

the other   and   as such  decision  by   the  criminal Court  in  the
criminal proceedings is purely provisional or temporary in nature
until a decision is given from the competent Civil Court as to the
legal right to possession of the suit property.  As such criminal
proceedings, therefore, would no longer survive once the decree
for possession is passed by the competent Civil Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO.157 OF 2015

Balu @ Balasaheb Bapurao Khawal, Vs Subhash Pundlikrao Jadhav,

CORAM : A. P. BHANGALE, J. 
DATE : AUGUST 14, 2015
Citation: 2016(4) ALLMR 149

Print Page

Whether observation made by court in proceeding U/S 145 CRPC is relevant in rent control proceeding?

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 345 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3989 of 2014)

Decided On: 13.01.2015

Surinder Pal Kaur Vs. Satpal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties on the above point. It is settled position of law that the observations made in the proceedings drawn Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure do not bind the competent court in a legal proceedings initiated before it. A decision given Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure has relevance in evidence to show one or more of the following facts:

(a) that there was a dispute relating to a particular property;
(b) that the dispute was between the parties;
(c) that such dispute led to the passing of a preliminary order Under Section 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure or an order of attachment issued Under Section 146(1) Code of Criminal Procedure; and
(d) that the Magistrate found particular party or parties in possession or fictional possession of the disputed property.

12. In Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi MANU/SC/0863/2003 : (2004) 1 SCC 438, this Court has held, in paragraph 15, that the reasoning recorded by the Magistrate or other findings arrived at by him have no relevance and are not admissible in evidence before the competent court (except for the limited purposes enumerated above). Also, it was further held in said case that the words "competent court" as used in Sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Code do not necessarily mean a civil court only. A competent court is one which has the jurisdictional competence to determine the question of title or the rights of the parties with regard to the entitlement as to possession over the property forming the subject-matter of proceedings before the Executive Magistrate.

Citation; AIR 2015 SC 2739

Print Page