Jammu and Kashmir High Court Limits Use of Section 145 CrPC in Property Title Disputes and Possession Cases.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani stated that Section 145 CrPC only determines possession, not ownership or rights, to prevent breach of peace.

- Section 145 CrPC doesn't apply to title disputes.

- Proceedings are limited to possession, not ownership.

- Civil suits are necessary for resolving title disputes.

The court criticized unnecessary observations by the Additional Sessions Judge and upheld the direction to decide possession. This ruling clarifies Section 145 CrPC's limitations, distinguishing possession from ownership and emphasizing proper legal channels for title disputes.

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has issued a significant ruling, clarifying that Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cannot be utilized to recover possession of a property when the dispute pertains to the title.

A dispute arose between two parties over the possession of a shop in Jammu. The respondent, claiming to be a tenant, alleged forcible dispossession by the petitioners and initiated proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, citing a breach of peace threat.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani emphasized that Section 145 CrPC's scope is limited to determining possession at the time of application or two months prior, without examining ownership or rights. The court stated:

"Section 145 CrPC provides a summary procedure to resolve disputes relating to land or buildings to prevent breach of peace... A Magistrate under this provision is only concerned with determining which party was in possession of the date of the application or two months prior therethrough

- Section 145 CrPC cannot be used to recover possession in title disputes.

- Proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are limited to possession, not ownership or rights.

- Summary procedure cannot replace civil suits for resolving title disputes.

The court criticized the Additional Sessions Judge's findings, which implied the petitioners took the law into their own hands by locking the shop. The High Court upheld the direction to decide possession but deemed observations on alleged unlawful actions unwarranted.

This ruling provides clarity on the limitations of Section 145 CrPC, emphasizing its restricted scope in resolving possession disputes. It reinforces the importance of distinguishing between possession and ownership, and highlights the need for parties to seek remedies through appropriate legal channels.

- Reiterated the limited purpose of Section 145 CrPC.

- Clarified the distinction between possession and ownership.

- Emphasized the importance of using appropriate legal channels for resolving title disputes.