The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a Magistrate is duty-bound to adjudicate third-party objections filed under Section 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before executing an attachment order under Section 83.

Delaying such adjudication until after physical attachment or receipt of a compliance report is contrary to the law, the Court held.

Justice Sanjay Dhar made these observations while setting aside an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Registrar), Srinagar.

The Magistrate had postponed hearing objections raised by a third party on the grounds that the attachment had not yet been carried out and that a compliance report from the Deputy Commissioner was awaited.

Emphasizing a harmonious reading of Sections 83 and 84 CrPC, the High Court underscored the legal protection afforded to third parties whose property might be wrongfully attached.

Justice Dhar noted that although a Magistrate may order property attachment under Section 83 following a proclamation under Section 82, Section 84 provides a legal mechanism for third parties to object—claiming that the property does not belong to the accused.

Crucially, the Court clarified that there is no restriction on filing or deciding such objections before the attachment is executed. In fact, once objections are raised, it becomes the Magistrate’s legal responsibility to determine whether the property belongs to the accused.

"It does not bar raising of objection prior to the attachment. Thus, if a third party raises an objection prior to the attachment of the property, the court has to decide the same... and if the court comes to the conclusion that the property does not belong to the accused, the court can pass an order, either declining to attach the property or withdraw the attachment order,” the Court said.

The Court rejected the trial Magistrate's reasoning that objections could be considered only after the implementation of the attachment and found no legal justification for waiting for a compliance report from the Deputy Commissioner before proceeding with adjudication.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Magistrate’s order and directed that the petitioner’s objections under Section 84 CrPC be decided without delay.

Justice Dhar ordered:

“The learned trial Magistrate is directed to proceed ahead and decide the objections filed by the petitioner to the attachment order most expeditiously after hearing the parties, without waiting for the compliance report of the Deputy Commissioner concerned.”

The case arose from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the accused failed to appear, the Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants, declared the accused an absconder, and issued a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC.

Although the High Court stayed the proclamation and initial attachment in early 2023, the Magistrate later issued a fresh attachment order under Section 83, directing the Deputy Commissioner to attach movable and immovable assets of the accused, including accounts held by Firdous Educational Institute.

Petitioner Sheikh Showkat claimed ownership of the attached property and initially approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The court, however, directed him to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 84 before the Magistrate.

When the Magistrate refused to entertain the objections pending the compliance report, Showkat again approached the High Court, resulting in the present decision.

Case Title: Sheikh Showkat v. Ghulam Jeelani Chesti & Ors.