Drastic Measure Of Property Attachment, Appointment Of Receiver Can't Be Resorted To Routinely: P&H High Court In Tenancy Dispute

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the setting aside of an order appointing a receiver over a disputed shop, while strongly cautioning the routine use of "drastic measure of attachment of property and appointment of a receiver".Justice Sumeet Goel upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, which had quashed the Sub Divisional Magistrate's (SDM) decision to initiate proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. and appoint a receiver over the property.While examining the impugned order the Court noted that the order passed by the SDM neither discloses any discernible legal rationale nor aligns with the principles governing the exercise jurisdiction under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. "the SDM has failed to record the requisite independent satisfaction as contemplated under Section 146 Cr.P.C, particularly with regard to the existence of an emergency or the inability to decide the question of possession. In fact, the material on record indicates that the aspect of possession was neither indeterminable nor incapable of adjudication; it not only appears to have been evident, rather admitted. In such circumstances, the drastic measure of attachment of property and appointment of a receiver could not have been resorted in a routine or mechanical manner," it added.BackgroundThe dispute pertained to Shop No. 43, Arya Samaj Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, involving a landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner (landlord) and respondent No.2 (tenant). The litigation history between the parties was extensive, including rent petitions, civil suits, and criminal proceedings.A civil suit filed by the landlord had already resulted in an interim injunction restraining the tenant from carrying out construction or altering the nature of the property. Despite this, disputes escalated, leading to registration of an FIR dated 02.09.2023 against the tenant and subsequently, initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the police on 07.09.2023.The SDM, Thanesar, appointed a receiver to take possession of the disputed shop. However, this order was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge on 24.03.2025, prompting the present petition.The High Court observed that the dispute between the parties was essentially civil in nature, arising out of tenancy rights, and was already subject matter of civil litigation.It held that once an injunction order had been passed by the Civil Court, the appropriate remedy for any alleged violation was to approach that Court, rather than invoking criminal proceedings.The Court found the initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. to be arbitrary and excessive, noting that there was no material to show any imminent breach of peace warranting such action.Importantly, the Court noted that the tenant was admittedly in possession of the disputed property, and therefore, there was no justification for invoking Section 146 Cr.P.C. or appointing a receiver.It also termed the SDM's order as “cryptic and laconic,” observing that it lacked reasoning, failed to record satisfaction regarding the existence of an emergency, and reflected non-application of mind.In a significant observation, the Court expressed concern over the growing tendency of litigants to misuse criminal law as a tool for harassment and to settle personal scores.It remarked that such disputes, driven by “mutual acrimony” and “bruised egos,” were reducing courts into battlegrounds for private vendettas. The Court emphasized that criminal law cannot be used as a parallel mechanism to bypass civil remedies or court orders.Justice Goel observed, "This Court cannot lose sight of the broader institutional concern that such misuse engenders. The judicial system, already burdened with an onerous docket, is further strained when its time and resources are diverted towards adjudicating disputes that are, in essence, manifestations of personal vendetta rather than genuine legal controversies. Such practices not only impede the expeditious resolution of bona fide disputes but also erode public confidence in the sanctity and efficacy of the judicial process."Relying on Supreme Court judgements, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not become a platform for vindictive litigation and warned against abuse of the judicial process.The principle interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium stands gravely undermined when parties indulge in frivolous or motivated proceedings. Equally, the phrase 'abuse of process of law' is not a mere phrase but a substantive doctrine, obligating Courts to interdict proceedings that are initiated with oblique motives or for collateral purposes, it added.Holding that the Sessions Judge's order suffered from no legal infirmity, the High Court upheld the same and dismissed the petition. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.Ms....

Drastic Measure Of Property Attachment, Appointment Of Receiver Can't Be Resorted To Routinely: P&H High Court In Tenancy Dispute

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Drastic Measure Of Property Attachment, Appointment Of Receiver Can't Be Resorted To Routinely: P&H High Court In Tenancy Dispute

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers