Oral Judgment:

1. The Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 13/03/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2023, whereby the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the Revision filed against the order dated 02/03/2023 passed by the Tahsildar under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) proceedings, whereby the proceedings were closed in view of the filing of a civil suit between the parties, however the Tahsildar had restrained the Petitioners i.e. Suryakant Kalshetti and Lingraj Kalshetti herein from interfering into the possession of the Respondent No.3– Mahesh Kalshetti herein.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the learned Tahsildar had committed an error apparent on the face of record whereby the Section 145 of CrPC proceedings are closed in view of the filing of the civil suit, however still the learned Tahsildar has usurped the jurisdiction of the civil Court and has injuncted the Petitioners herein from interfering the possession of Respondent No.3 - Mahesh Kalshetti. The said order was therefore illegal and was challenged by the Petitioners herein before the Revisional Court by filing the Revision being Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2023. The Revisional Court even though had recorded a finding that the learned Tahsildar could not have injuncted the Petitioners from disturbing the possession after having dismissed the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC in view of the alternate remedy by filing a civil suit, which was already availed by the parties, had gone ahead to dismiss the revision without any cogent reasons. Learned counsel therefore submits that both the Courts below have failed to apply their mind to the facts of the present case and as such the same has resulted in to the miscarriage of the justice. Therefore, the impugned orders are unjust, illegal and without any jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to grant stay and injunction from interfering the possession of any person would lies with the civil Court and not with the revenue Court. The proceedings undertaken under Section 145 of the CrPC are limited in nature and pertains only to an inquiry into the question of possession of the property. The Revenue Authorities does not have any power to grant permanent or temporary injunction to the parties from interfering in the possession. Since the learned Revenue Court has already recorded its reasoning that the parties have approached the civil Court, the learned Tahsildar ought to have refrained from exercising its jurisdiction usurping the jurisdiction of the civil Court in injuncting the Petitioners herein from disturbing the possession. The learned trial Court so also the learned revisional Court have failed to apply its mind, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Petition may therefore be allowed by setting aside the order.

3. As against this, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 Mr. Ligade strongly opposed the Petition on the ground that there is a clear cut finding recorded by the learned Tahsildar pertaining to the possession of the present Respondent No.3, which is reported in two reports referred to in the order dated 02/03/2023. The Tahsildar though had closed the proceedings, however has recorded that the Respondent No.3 was found to be in possession of the agricultural lands 438/1, 438/7 and 467/6. The learned Tahsildar after having come to a conclusion that the Respondent No.3 was in peaceful possession of the said premises found that the Petitioners have indulged into disturbing the possession of the Respondent No.3. As such, learned Tahsildar has rightly restrained the Petitioners from disturbing the possession of the Respondent No.3. The provisions under Section 145 (6)(a) of CrPC would also provide the necessary powers to the Tahsildar, to restore the possession of the parties, who was forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 therefore submits that since the learned Tahsildar possesses the power to forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction, the learned Tahsildar has rightly exercised its jurisdiction vested under Section 145 (6)(a) of CrPC. The impugned order was challenged before the learned Revisional Court, the learned Revisional Court has also apprised itself about the provisions of Section 145 (6)(a) of CrPC and found that the learned Tahsildar has rightly exercised the power and restrained the Petitioners from disturbing the possession of the Respondent No.3. There is no error committed either by the learned Tahsildar or by the learned Revisional Court and as such, the Petition is devoid of any substance and merits and is liable to be rejected.

5. Section 145 (6)(a) of CrPC, which reads thus :

                   “Section 145(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.”

6. In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, viz. Mohd. Shakir Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in [2022 Live Law (SC) 727], it has been held that during pendency of civil suit qua property in question, while dropping the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., there is no justification for the learned Magistrate to record any finding or issue any interim direction. The Magistrate ought to have left all the relevant aspects for consideration of the competent civil court, without recoding any finding in the matter.

7. The aforesaid provision no doubt specifically empowers the Tahsildar to forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction, however the same has to be necessarily followed after an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof before and after receiving a report from the Police Officer as provided under Section 145(1) of CrPC. In the present case, though the reports were already called under Section 145(1) of CrPC from the Police about the possession of the disputed agricultural lands, however the Tahsildar had not declared such party to be entitled to possession until evicted in due course of law, instead the Tahsildar has chosen a unique procedure to be adopted by declaring the proceedings as closed in view of the pendency of the civil suit between the parties and has thereafter gone ahead to restrain the Petitioners from disturbing the possession of the Respondent No.3. This act on the part of the Tahsildar, in my opinion is dehors the provisions of Section 145 (6)(a) of CrPC. The Tahsildar having come to a conclusion that the parties are already pursuing their civil remedies ought to have simply closed the proceedings. The said order of the Tahsildar injuncting the Petitioners from restraining the possession of Respondent No.3 therefore in my view appears to be an exercise of exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 145 of CrPC. Learned Revisional Court has also failed to apply its mind to the error apparent on the face of record and has wrongly dismissed the revision. In my view, therefore both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set-aside. Hence, the following Order :

                   ORDER

                   (i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

                   (ii) The impugned order dated 02/03/2023 passed by the Tahsildar in proceedings No.2018/MAG/SR/02 and the order dated 13/03/2025 passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2023 are hereby quashed and set-aside.

                   (iii) The parties shall get their rights decided in the pending civil suits.

8. Needless to mention that this Court has not considered the merits of the matter about the possession of the property in dispute. The issue of possession and injunction shall be decided in the proceedings pending before the Civil Court.