Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In an application filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (CrPC), challenging the revisional order dated 1 November 2025, the Single Judge Bench of Brij Raj Singh, J., held that the Revisional Court rightly set aside the order of the City Magistrate attaching the disputed shop, as the record and police report indicated that the opposite parties were in actual possession of the premises and thus rejected the application.
Background
The applicant being an old lady, claimed ownership and possession over a house in Mohalla Golaganj, Gonda, in which the shop in dispute was situated. According to her, the property was recorded in the name of her husband since 1946 and after his death she and her son became its legal heirs. She alleged that Opposite Party 2 was attempting to illegally encroach upon the shop.
On her complaint to the District Magistrate, the police submitted a report stating that a dispute regarding possession existed between the parties and there was an apprehension of breach of peace. The police recommended attachment of the property under Section 165, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Both parties appeared before the City Magistrate. The applicant sought attachment of the shop and appointment of a receiver, whereas the opposite party filed objections and also instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction. After hearing the parties, the City Magistrate passed an order dated 24 October 2024 attaching the shop.
Aggrieved, the opposite parties filed a criminal revision which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 1 November 2025, setting aside the Magistrate’s order. The applicant thereafter, filed the present application.
Issue
Whether proceedings under Sections 164/165 BNSS could be invoked to attach the property and disturb possession when the opposite parties were already in actual possession of the disputed shop.
Analysis and decision
Relying on the principles laid down in Mahabirji Mandir Committee v. State of U.P., 1992 SCC OnLine All 1154, and Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P., 2002 SCC OnLine All 1606, the Court noted that the opposite parties to be the claiming tenants of applicant and having possession of the shop in question. The Court observed that in case of actual possession with the opposite parties, then they cannot be dispossessed by proceeding under Sections 164/165 BNSS, except in accordance with law by the order of the Court.
Finding no illegality in the revisional order, which had set aside the City Magistrate’s attachment order, the Court rejected the application filed.
[Indu Tandon v. State of U.P., A482 No. 10324 of 2025, decided on 2-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Ashish Kumar Singh
For the respondent: G.A., Priya Bharti, Saima Khan
