Magistrate Cannot Order Conditional Seizure Based On Disputed Ownership: MP High Court Sets Aside Seizure In Robbery Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a Magistrate, while exercising powers under Section 156(3) of CrPC, cannot issue conditional directions that hinge upon adjudication of disputed title or ownership, as such issues fall within the domain of trial or civil proceedings. The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed, "The power of seizure during investigation lies with the Police under the relevant provisions relating to investigation. The Magistrate, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) cannot issue conditional directions hinging upon adjudication of title, which is a matter for trial or civil adjudication". The case arose from a complaint filed by the respondents 2 and 3 under Section 156(3) CrPC, alleging that on July 6, 2023, when respondent 3 was on his way to his sister's house, the petitioner and others forcibly robbed his tractor. While considering the application under Section 156(3) of CrPC, which empowers a Magistrate to direct registration of FIR and invesitgation into a cognizable offence, the Trial Court directed that if a tractor in question was found to be within the trial and ownership of the complainant, it be seized and kept in the police station. The Sessions Judge affirmed this order in revision. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court. The counsel for the petitioner contended that, while dealing with an application under Section 156(3), the magistrate is required only to examine whether a prima facie case for directing an investigation is made out. It was contended that a civil suit regarding the property was pending for consideration before a competent Civil Court, and therefore, the impugned order amounted to adjudication of civil rights. The counsel for the respondents contended that the direction in the impugned order was only to secure the property during investigation and did not determine the title of the property. The court noted that the scope of Section 156(3) of CrPC was limited, in which a magistrate was required to examine whether the allegations disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence warranting investigation. The bench retired that at the stage of directing the investigation under Section 156(3), the magistrate does not adjudicate disputes related to title or civil rights of parties. The bench noted that the direction of the Trial Court to seize the tractor presupposes a determination regarding title and ownership. The court noted that such a determination by the Trial Court was beyond the scope of proceedings under Section 156(3). The court observed,"Where a civil dispute regarding ownership is admittedly pending before the competent Civil Court, the Criminal Court must exercise restraint so as not to pass orders which may prejudice the adjudication of civil rights". The bench further emphasised that the power of seizure during investigation lies within the police under relevant provisions relating to investigation. The bench observed that the magistrate, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3), cannot issue conditional directions hinging upon adjudication of title, which is a matter for trial or civil adjudication.Thus, the court held that the order passed by the Trial Court, to the extent that it directs conditional seizure based on disputed title and ownership, cannot be sustained in law. The bench, however, further clarified that the magistrate was free to consider the application under Section 156(3) CrPC strictly in accordance with law, limited to the question whether a cognizable offence is made out. The court further held, "The Investigating Agency, if investigation is directed and undertaken, shall be free to exercise its statutory powers in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. The Civil Court shall independently adjudicate the dispute regarding title and ownership uninfluenced by any criminal proceedings". Thus, the court allowed the petition. Case Title: Thakurdas Yadav v State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-4481-2025]For Petitioner: Advocate Vishal Vincent Rajendra DanielFor State: Advocate C.S. UpadhyayFor Respondents 2 and 3: Advocate Bramha Nand PandeyClick here to read/download the Order

Magistrate Cannot Order Conditional Seizure Based On Disputed Ownership: MP High Court Sets Aside Seizure In Robbery Case

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Magistrate Cannot Order Conditional Seizure Based On Disputed Ownership: MP High Court Sets Aside Seizure In Robbery Case

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers