Sections 145 & 146 CrPC Are Preventive, Not a Tool to Bypass Civil Orders or Settle Vendettas: Punjab & Haryana HC Cautions Against Using of Criminal Law as a Tool for Personal Vendetta
Case Name: Raj Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana and another
Date of Judgment: April 20, 2026
Citation: CRM-M-22943-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The High Court held that jurisdiction under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. is purely preventive and must be exercised sparingly, only when there is a genuine and imminent apprehension of breach of peace based on objective material. It cannot be invoked to override civil court orders, determine possession where it is already admitted, or to settle private disputes. The SDM’s order appointing a receiver without recording satisfaction regarding emergency was held unsustainable.
Summary: The case arose out of a long-standing landlord-tenant dispute concerning a shop in Kurukshetra. The petitioner-landlord and respondent-tenant were already engaged in multiple civil and rent proceedings. The tenant was admittedly in possession of the disputed property.
Following allegations of unauthorized construction, an FIR was registered against the tenant. Shortly thereafter, the police initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and sought attachment of the property under Section 146 Cr.P.C. The SDM appointed a receiver and restrained both parties from interfering with the property.
The Sessions Court set aside this order, leading to the present petition before the High Court.
The High Court observed that the dispute was fundamentally civil in nature and already subject to adjudication before competent civil courts, which had passed injunction orders. It emphasized that if there was any violation of civil court directions, the appropriate remedy lay before the civil court itself.
The Court found that the tenant’s possession was undisputed, thereby negating any justification for invoking emergency powers under Section 146 Cr.P.C. It further noted that the SDM’s order was cryptic, lacked reasoning, and failed to record the mandatory satisfaction regarding existence of an emergency.
The Court also criticized the conduct of the police in initiating preventive proceedings without any substantial change in circumstances after registration of the FIR, terming it arbitrary and lacking bona fides.
Significantly, the Court cautioned against the growing misuse of criminal law as a means to settle personal scores and emphasized that such practices erode the sanctity of judicial processes.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the Sessions Judge. It held that the initiation of proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. was legally untenable in the absence of any real emergency or dispute regarding possession. The SDM’s order appointing a receiver was found to be mechanical, unreasoned, and beyond jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the Sessions Court had rightly interfered, and no ground for interference was made out.