Punjab & Haryana High Court: While considering a petition filed under Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the petitioner, landlord of the shop in dispute, challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) whereby criminal revision filed by the tenant, against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) which restricted both the parties to interfere in the said shop and appointed a Receiver to take possession of the same, a Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., held that the present case showed a disquieting and steadily growing tendency amongst litigants to invoke the criminal jurisdiction, not as a bona fide recourse for redressal of legitimate grievances, but as a convenient instrument to settle personal scores and wreak private vengeance.
The Court stated that in such circumstances, the drastic measure of attachment of property and appointment of a Receiver could not have been resorted to in a routine or mechanical manner. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition at hand.
Background
In the present case, the landlord filed a rent petition under Section 13, Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking eviction of tenant from the disputed shop. It was dismissed as withdrawn, in view of the compromise between the parties.
As the landlord’s authorised representative, the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Haryana filed a civil suit under Sections 37 and 38, Specific Relief Act, 1963 against the tenant and the Additional Civil Judge passed an interim injunction order against the tenant restraining him from further demolishing/damaging the suit property, carrying out any construction activity and changing the nature of the disputed shop.
Thereafter, the civil suit was finally disposed of in view of the statement made by the tenant that he would carry out necessary construction works only with prior permission of either the rent controller or the landlord.
In the meantime, during pendency of the civil proceedings, a dispute regarding alleged construction activity at the shop resulted in registration of FIR, against the tenant, under Sections 323, 427 and 506, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by the appointed caretaker of the disputed shop. The criminal case arising out of the FIR was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
Further disputes arose, leading to another police complaint by the landlord. The police then initiated proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and submitted a complaint before the SDM with a request for appointment of Receiver under Section 146 CrPC to secure the disputed shop.
Meanwhile, the tenant filed a separate civil suit against the State of Haryana and police officials seeking damages and a perpetual injunction restraining interference in his peaceful possession of the said shop. An interim order was passed restraining them from interfering with the tenant’s rights over the disputed shop.
Apart from these proceedings, another rent petition was filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant on grounds of non-payment of rent, personal necessity, and unauthorised use and occupation, which was still pending.
The SDM finally decided the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC by appointing the Executive Officer as Receiver of the disputed shop. Aggrieved by this, the tenant approached the Additional Sessions Judge who allowed the petition by setting aside the SDM’s order. The said order was challenged before the High Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the dispute between the parties, though sought to be projected as giving rise to criminal proceedings, essentially emerged from tenancy rights over the disputed shop. The Court noted that prior to the initiation of proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, the landlord had already approached the civil court by way of a suit wherein an interim injunction had been granted restraining the tenant from carrying out any construction activity or altering the nature of the shop.
The Court opined that in the event of any alleged violation of the said injunction order, the appropriate remedy available to the landlord was to seek recourse before the civil court itself. Instead, the landlord chose to enter the disputed shop and initiate parallel criminal proceedings, which led to registration of an FIR, followed by a fresh complaint culminating in the filing of a complaint by the police. The Court observed that such a sequence of actions, particularly considering the earlier eviction proceedings which had been withdrawn based on compromise, reflected a clear intent on the part of the landlord to oust the tenant from the disputed property.
The Court further noted that the action of the police in initiating proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, despite having already set the criminal law into motion through registration of an FIR on the same set of allegations, lacked coherence and raised serious doubts regarding the bona fides of such action. The Court held that in the absence of any fresh material or change in circumstances indicating an imminent breach of peace, recourse to preventive proceedings was arbitrary.
The Court emphasised that proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are preventive in nature and cannot be invoked as a substitute for enforcement of civil rights or to circumvent orders passed by competent civil courts. It further held that in the present case, the possession of the disputed property by the tenant was an admitted position, and therefore, the appointment of a Receiver under Section 146 CrPC by the SDM was unwarranted.
The Court further stated that since in a separate civil suit filed by the tenant, the police authorities had already been restrained from interfering with his possession over the disputed shop, in such circumstances, the initiation of proceedings under Section 145 CrPC was beyond the permissible limits of statutory authority and took the character of colourable exercise of power.
The Court considered the order passed by the SDM and observed that the same was cryptic, devoid of reasoning, and did not reflect any independent application of mind. The Court held that the SDM had failed to record the necessary satisfaction as required under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC, particularly regarding the existence of an emergency or inability to determine possession. The Court opined that such a mechanical exercise of power could not be sustained in law.
The Court further cautioned against the growing tendency of litigants to invoke criminal proceedings to settle private disputes and personal vendettas. It observed that such misuse of the criminal justice system not only burdens the courts but also undermines the sanctity of judicial processes. The Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be permitted to be used as a tool of harassment or to achieve collateral purposes.
The Court stated that “in such circumstances, the drastic measure of attachment of property and appointment of a Receiver could not have been resorted in a routine or mechanical manner.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the order passed by the Sessions Judge setting aside the SDM’s order did not suffer from any legal infirmity and warranted no interference. The petition was therefore dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
[Raj Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana, CRM M No. 22943 of 2025, decided on 20-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Edward Augustine George, Advocate and Shubham Malik, Advocate
For the Respondent: Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG Haryana and Shrey Goel, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
