Disposed¶9

Sameer Bashir Jamadar v. Abhijeet Jagannath Bidkar and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2025WP/38/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition (criminal side) WP 38 of 2024, decided 04-12-2025 by N. J. Jamadar, J.; petitioner Sameer Bashir Jamadar v. Abhijeet Jagannath Bidkar; challenge to Additional Sessions Judge Pune order dated 19-03-2020 in CRA 139/2020 on SDM order under S.145 CrPC 1973 regarding possession of plot No. 10; RCS 5353/2012 dismissed; Respondent 1's suit that RCS 5353/2012 does not bind him; breach of peace satisfaction; petition disposed with clarification that S.145 possession finding does not affect civil proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of subject to the clarification that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's possession finding in favour of Respondent No. 1 over plot No. 10 is confined to the Section 145 CrPC proceedings and will not come in the way of the petitioner in the civil proceedings. ¶9

Sameer Bashir Jamadar vs Abhijeet Jagannath Bidkar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether there was proper service of notice of the proceeding under Section 145 CrPC on the petitioner (scope of inquiry framed by this Court on 22 July 2025). +1 more

¶4

Ratio / Principle

In the backdrop of the pending civil proceedings, this Court found no propriety, at this stage, in entertaining the writ petition against an order passed under Section 145 CrPC; the petition was accordingly disposed of subject to clarification rather than entertained on merits.

¶8

Key takeaways

The finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that defendant-Respondent No. 1 is in possession of plot No. 10 was clarified to be confined to the action initiated under Section 145 CrPC and will not come in the way of the petitioner in the civil proceedings.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.) disposed of a writ petition challenging the order dated 19 March 2020 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No. 139/2020, directed against a Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order under S.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 recording Respondent No. 1 in possession of plot No. 10 until decision of the civil proceedings. Counsel pointed out that the earlier suit R.C.S. No. 5353/2012 had been dismissed (plaintiff held owner, but encroachment not established), and Respondent No. 1 had instituted a suit seeking declaration that the RCS No. 5353/2012 judgment does not bind him. Declining to entertain the petition at this stage against a S.145 order, the Court clarified that the Magistrate's possession finding was confined to the S.145 proceedings and would not come in the way of the petitioner in the civil proceedings. No monetary relief involved.

¶1

33 WP 38.24.DOC

¶2

SAINATH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 38 OF 2024

¶6

Sameer Bashir Jamadar ..Petitioner Versus Abhijeet Jagannath Bidkar and …Respondents Ors

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, for petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Misal (through VC) a/w. Rohit Chavan, for respondent No. 1.

¶9

Mr. P. P. Malshe, APP for Respondent No. 2 – State.

¶10

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 04^th DECEMBER 2025

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

SANTOSHSUBHASH Digitally signed bySANTOSHSUBHASHKULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2025.12.1121:35:55 +0530

¶14

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 19^th March, 2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No. 139/2020 against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 recording that the respondent No. 1 is in possession of the subject plot No. 10 and the said plot shall remain in the possession of Respondent No. 1 till the decision of the civil proceedings.

¶15

1/3

¶16

33 WP 38.24.DOC

¶17

Mr. Shivarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, the impugned order as well as order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate suffer from manifest error as the Civil Court in the earlier suit has held that, the plaintiff is the owner of the said plot. However, since the plaintiff failed to establish that, the defendants had encroached upon the said plot, the said suit i.e. R.C.S. No. 5353/2012, came to be dismissed.

¶18

When the matter was listed before this Court on 22^nd July, 2025, this Court had opined that, the scope of inquiry in this petition was limited to the question: whether there was proper service of notice of the proceeding under Section 145 ? and whether the Respondent No. 1 had made out a case for passing of the impugned order ?

¶19

Mr. Shivarkar submitted that, even if it is assumed that the notice was duly served on the Petitioner, on merits, the SubDivisional Magistrate could not have passed the order declaring that, the Respondent No. 1 is in possession of the subject plot. It was further submitted that, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not recorded a finding that there was a likelihood of breach of peace.

¶20

2/3

¶21

33 WP 38.24.DOC

¶22

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has noted that, complaints and cross-complaints were filed by the parties and there was an imminent possibility of breach of peace. The learned Sessions Judge has also recorded that, in the circumstances of the case, the satisfaction recorded by the Magistrate that there was a likelihood of breach of peace cannot be faulted at.

¶23

The Respondent No. 1 has instituted a suit seeking declaration that the judgment and order in RCS No. 5353/2012 does not bind him.

¶24

In the backdrop of these facts, at this stage, this Court does not find any propriety in entertaining the petition against an order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as the finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the defendant-Respondent No. 1 is in possession of the plot No. 10, it would be suffice to clarify that, the said finding was confined to action initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and will not come in the way of petitioner in civil proceedings.

¶25

Subject to aforesaid clarification, the petition stands disposed.

¶26

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶27

3/3

Sameer Bashir Jamadar v. Abhijeet Jagannath Bidkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Bashir Jamadar v. Abhijeet Jagannath Bidkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Chemco Plast

Baliram Bhiku Shinde Thr. P.A.H. Vikas Baliram Shinde vs Bajirao Hari Shinde and Anr.

Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja vs Tukaram Ambo Bhoir

Shiakh Asif Shaikh Rashid @ Asif Shaikh Rasheed vs Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique

Anand Sanjaybhai Shah vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anand Sanjaybhai Shah vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.