Can Proceedings Under Section 145 CrPC Continue Despite a Pending Civil Suit? Punjab & Haryana High Court Answers
Case Name: Bijender Singh Jhakhar @ Brijender Jakhar & Others v. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: 29 July 2026
Citation: CRM-M-3662-2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the mere pendency of a civil suit or the passing of an interim status quo order does not automatically bar or render redundant proceedings under Section 145 CrPC. Unless the Civil Court has adjudicated or substantially determined the question of possession or granted effective protection regarding possession, the Executive Magistrate retains jurisdiction to initiate and continue preventive proceedings under Section 145 CrPC to prevent breach of peace. Since the Civil Court had merely directed maintenance of status quo without determining actual possession, the proceedings before the Executive Magistrate were held to be legally maintainable and the petition seeking quashing under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.
Summary: The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a Kalandra and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 145 CrPC relating to a property dispute in Gurugram. The dispute arose after one of the petitioners purchased the property through a registered sale deed and took possession, following which respondent No. 4 claimed ownership over the same property and instituted a civil suit seeking partition, possession, and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the Civil Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession. Meanwhile, preventive proceedings under Section 145 CrPC were also initiated by the Executive Magistrate owing to the likelihood of breach of peace.
The petitioners argued that once the Civil Court had assumed jurisdiction and passed an order directing maintenance of status quo, continuation of proceedings under Section 145 CrPC amounted to parallel adjudication and was legally impermissible. They contended that questions relating to title and possession could only be decided by the Civil Court and relied upon several Supreme Court precedents to argue that preventive proceedings should be quashed.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised under Section 145 CrPC is preventive rather than adjudicatory. The provision is intended solely to preserve public peace where disputes concerning immovable property create an apprehension of breach of peace. The Court observed that the Civil Court had not recorded any finding, even prima facie, regarding actual or settled possession of the disputed property. An order directing maintenance of status quo merely preserves the existing situation and cannot be equated with an adjudication of possession or title. Consequently, such an interim order does not divest the Executive Magistrate of jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC.
The Court further distinguished the judgments cited by the petitioners, observing that those cases involved situations where the Civil Court had already determined possession or granted effective protection, leaving no scope for parallel preventive proceedings. In contrast, the present dispute remained pending without any judicial determination of possession. Relying upon its earlier decision in Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reaffirmed that proceedings under Section 145 CrPC remain maintainable until the Civil Court finally adjudicates the rights of the parties. Since the impugned order merely directed the Patwari to submit a demarcation report and did not determine title or possession, no prejudice warranting exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC was established. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed while clarifying that the Civil Court alone would finally decide the rights of the parties.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the continuation of proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, holding that pendency of a civil suit coupled with an interim status quo order does not bar the Executive Magistrate from exercising preventive jurisdiction where possession has not yet been judicially determined and there exists an apprehension of breach of peace.