Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to causebreach of peace
Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to causebreach of peace. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace.
(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression "land or water" includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property.
(3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute,
(4) The Magistrate shall then, without, reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub-section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1).
(5) Nothing in this section 'shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed ; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under subsection (1) shall be final.
(6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated as being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such
possession until such eviction; and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.
(b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3).
(7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding and shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the purposes of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto.
(8) If the Magistrate is of opinion that any crop or other produce of the property, the subject of dispute in a proceeding under this section pending before him, is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of. such property, and, upon the completion of the inquiry, shall make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale-proceeds thereof, as he thinks fit.
(9) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceedings under this section, on the application of either party, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing.
(10) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation of the powers of the Magistrate to proceed under section 107.
Section 145, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 164 Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace Text carried over almost unchanged 94%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 9
- s. 39 Public to give information of certain offences
- s. 40 Duty of officers employed in connection with the affairs of a villageto make certain report
- s. 146 Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint receiver
- s. 147 Dispute concerning right of use of land or water
- s. 148 Local inquiry
- s. 172 Diary of proceedings in investigation
- s. 274 Record in summons-cases and inquiries
- s. 354 Language and contents of judgment
- s. 478 Power to alter functions allocated to Executive Magistrates in certaincases
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-1.pdf 2000-04-25 DATE VERIFIED. Variava (Thomas/Mahapatra). When a civil suit for possession or declaration of title over the same property is pending and the civil court can protect the property (status quo already granted), parallel CrPC 145 proceedings should not continue (Ram Sumer Puri applied). Not every later civil suit kills a concluded 145 order (Jhummamal distinguished). Do not remap 482.
On this section: Parallel s.145 proceedings should not continue when a civil suit for possession/title over the same property is pending and the civil court can protect the property (Amresh Tiwari).
-
Shakuntala Devi vs Chamru Mahto
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a magistrate declares a party to be entitled to possession under Section 145(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and no specific limitation period is prescribed within Section 145 for the enforcement of such declaration, the application for restoration of possession under Section 145(6) must be made within three years from the date of the declaration, as prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act as a residuary provision. An application for restoration filed beyond this three-year period is barred by limitation and cannot be entertained, and the provisions of the Specific Relief Act do not apply to criminal proceedings under Section 145 CrPC.
On this section: Establishes the jurisdiction of Executive Magistrate when a dispute likely to cause breach of peace exists concerning land or water; requires magistrate to make written order stating grounds of satisfaction
-
Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director LTD vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department S. H. O
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The expression 'any property' appearing in Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not include immovable property. A police officer does not have the power to attach, seize, and seal an immovable property under Section 102 of the Code. The word 'seize' in Section 102 means actual taking of possession which cannot be done with immovable property without dispossessing the occupant, which power is not conferred by Section 102. Immovable property disputes must be adjudicated by Civil Courts or through specialized statutory procedures like the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 or Chapter VIIA of the Code. However, police may seize documents or papers of title relating to immovable property as this is distinct from seizure of the immovable property itself.
On this section: Specific provisions relating to immovable property disputes which can be invoked as per law for matters concerning possession of immovable property.
-
Harish Sehgal vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The fundamental principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem - the right to be heard) is mandatory in all judicial proceedings, including summary and criminal proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. A court cannot modify the operative portion of a lower court's order in revision or revision-like proceedings without providing prior notice to all parties who would be adversely affected by such modification. Material variation in the phraseology of an operative portion of an order, even if ostensibly intended as clarification, requires full compliance with natural justice principles. The court's inherent jurisdiction to clarify orders cannot be exercised in a manner that bypasses the mandatory requirement of notice and hearing to affected parties.
On this section: Procedure for cognizance by magistrate when information of dispute as to possession of immovable property is given. Court's power to attach property and constitute receiver when breach of peace is apprehended.
-
Mamta Saini vs Krishan Chand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A revision petition against an order of attachment passed under the third proviso to Sub Section (4) of Section 145 CrPC is not maintainable as such order is an interlocutory order and the bar contained in Section 435(2) CrPC (formerly Section 435(4-a) CrPC) applies to revision petitions filed against interlocutory orders passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. Consequently, a Sessions Judge lacks jurisdiction to entertain and decide a revision petition against such an attachment order, and any order passed by the Sessions Judge in such revision petition is illegal and without jurisdiction.
On this section: Preliminary order passed by Magistrate recording satisfaction regarding apprehension of breach of peace and issuing notice to parties to file objections and documents
-
K. Guravaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A police officer cannot register a crime or issue an F.I.R in matters relating to Section 145 Cr.P.C (property disputes likely to cause breach of peace) because Section 145 does not contemplate any offence and the proper procedure is for the police officer to place a report before the Executive Magistrate, not to register a crime. Registration of crime in such matters exceeds the powers of police officers under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and is procedurally improper. Such registration can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C as it is outside the realm of law and creates opportunity for abuse of power.
On this section: Procedure for Executive Magistrate to pass orders in case of disputes concerning immovable property or water likely to cause breach of peace. Court held that this section does not contemplate registration of crime or issuance of F.I.R.
-
Maheshkumar Pooranmal Parpyani vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Criminal Writ Petition is not maintainable in the High Court against a final order passed by a District Magistrate under Section 145(6) Cr.P.C, as the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file a revision application before the Sessions Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The availability of a specific statutory remedy precludes recourse to extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
On this section: Application filed before District Magistrate under this section; relates to prevention of breach of peace or disturbance
-
Md.ibrahim Hussain vs The State of Ap.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a revision petition has been dismissed by the Sessions Court, a subsequent petition under Section 482 CrPC cannot be entertained by the High Court as it would amount to circumventing the statutory bar under Section 397(3) CrPC. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to overcome a statutory bar when the aggrieved party has already exhausted the remedy of revision before the lower court. The distinction lies in whether the party had an opportunity to avail the remedy of revision; if they did and it was dismissed, no second revision (whether labeled as such or as an inherent power petition) can be maintained.
On this section: Cited as the basis for the property attachment order passed by the Special Executive Magistrate
-
Sri Debojit Das vs Sri Manoj Saraf& ORS.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In proceedings under the Negotiable Instrument Act, a trial court cannot dismiss a complaint based on documents submitted by the accused without formally recording evidence and examining witnesses. Even in summary trials under Section 260 Cr.P.C., the procedure for recording evidence mandated by Section 262 Cr.P.C. must be followed. Factual allegations regarding the issuance of cheques, the existence of legally enforceable debt, and the absence of business transactions must be established through evidence, not through unexamined documents submitted with the petition. The trial court must proceed with the hearing and consider materials produced during the course of evidence before deciding the case.
On this section: Referenced in the context of recalling witnesses in NI Act proceedings. The court noted that recalling of witnesses under Section 145(2) presupposes that witnesses have already been examined.
-
KESHAV NATH vs STATE
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act takes a defence that the cheque was stolen or lost, the accused must establish this defence by cogent evidence and by demonstrating conduct consistent with that of a prudent person who would have immediately reported the theft/loss to police and his banker, sought return of the cheque, and taken appropriate legal action. Mere denial of liability or inconsistent statements regarding the defence are insufficient to rebut the mandatory statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused and cannot be discharged by bare explanation or reasonable probability; it must be supported by proof that the court either believes to exist or considers so probable that a prudent man would act upon the supposition that it exists.
On this section: Application by accused - Used by the accused to file application with defence in cheque dishonour cases
-
Khajan Singh vs State and Anr.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When property attachment and receiver appointment orders have been pending for an extended period (nearly four years), the High Court, while exercising its discretionary power under Section 482 CrPC, may choose to affirm such orders rather than quash them if no useful purpose would be served by disturbance at such a belated stage. However, the court should simultaneously direct the subordinate court to expeditiously conclude the underlying proceedings to prevent further delay and ensure finality.
On this section: The underlying proceedings were initiated under Section 145 CrPC, which deals with disputes concerning immovable property. The court directed the S.D.M. to conclude these proceedings within six months.
-
Vijay Kumar Rathore vs Dayashankar Rathore
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings under Section 147 of CrPC, when there is a registered sale deed in favor of the respondent establishing legal ownership of the land, the application of a person claiming possession based on a settlement agreement (Rajinama) or continuous possession becomes unmaintainable. The registered ownership, as evidenced by the revenue records and registered sale deed, takes precedence over claimed possession in determining the maintainability of such applications. The pendency of civil litigation regarding the same land does not alter this principle in criminal proceedings.
On this section: Cited as the basis for the Sub Divisional Magistrate's jurisdiction to inquire into disputes regarding possession of land. The petitioner had earlier filed an application under Sections 145-146 in 2012, which resulted in attachment of the land.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… It was stated that defendant No. 4 threatened to encroach upon the land in the Society comprising of Khasra No. 1273 which led to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Such proceedings have nothing to do with land comprising in Khasra No. 238. - 4. The defendant No. 4 in written statement asserted that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the land in dispute and suit for injunction was therefore not maintainable. It was further …
-
… XXX XXX XXX." A CHEQUERED HISTORY; FIRST STAGE 3. This litigation has a chequered history. It all began way back in the year 1955. Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short "CrPC") came to be initiated before the First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore as M.C. No. 1 of 1955 and M.C. No. 8 of 1955. Krishnammal, the widow of Rangaswami Naidu was 'A' Party. This was on the basis of the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police dated …
-
… XXX XXX XXX." A CHEQUERED HISTORY; FIRST STAGE 3. This litigation has a chequered history. It all began way back in the year 1955. Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short "CrPC") came to be initiated before the First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore as M.C. No. 1 of 1955 and M.C. No. 8 of 1955. Krishnammal, the widow of Rangaswami Naidu was 'A' Party. This was on the basis of the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police dated …
Questions about Section 145
What have the courts held on Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey (25 Apr 2000) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Parallel s.145 proceedings should not continue when a civil suit for possession/title over the same property is pending and the civil court can protect the property (Amresh Tiwari). Another 11 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 145, section 145 CRPC, section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 12 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey (25 Apr 2000).
What should I read with Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 107 (Security for keeping the peace in other cases), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 9 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 164 (Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 145, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.