APHC010351012020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5658/2020 Between: 1. Y.SATISH KUMAR,, S/O. Y.SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. 2/293, PATHURAU, VIJAMURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI. 2. THE TAHSILDAR AND MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, VIJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. CHAVALA LAKSHMI SWATHI, W/O.RAMESH, AGED MAJOR R/O. VIJAMURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. KATAM GOPAL REDDY, S/O.CHINA SUBBA REDDY, AGED MAJOR R/O. VIJAMURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to call for the entire records of the proceedings bearing Rc.A. 683/2020 dated 13-11-2020 under Sec. 145 of Cr.P.0 in respect of property 1st and 2nd floors of Akshaya Towers in Sy.No.797/11, near Kotha Bus Stand Vinjamuru Village and Mandal, SPSR 2 Nellore District issued by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same as abuse of process of law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings bearing Rc.A. 683/2020 dated 13-11-2020 under Sec. 145 of Cr.P.0 issued by the 2nd respondent herein, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 The Court made the following: ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in Rc.A.No.683 of 2020 dated 13.11.2020, issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, along with two others, invested in the construction of Akshaya Towers based on their respective financial capacities. They completed the tilt floor, the entire ground floor, and the first floor up to the slab level. However, due to certain disputes among them, they proceeded to have the documents registered in their respective names, after which the construction came to a halt. Learned counsel would further submit that after a considerable lapse of time, the petitioner resumed the construction on the first floor, which was opposed by the other shareholders, leading to further disputes. Consequently, the Station House Officer, Vinjamuru, sought the issuance of orders under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order was passed without due consideration of the FIRs, which do not warrant the said proceedings. Learned counsel would submit that the impugned order fails to comply with the requirements of Section 145(3) Cr.P.C. As a result of the impugned order, the petitioner has not been able to enjoy his rights over the property. Learned counsel would finally submit that the initiation of 4 proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is a mere abuse of process of law and prays that the same may be quashed. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Considering the submissions made, and a bare perusal of Section 145 Cr.P.C. reveals that the basis for invoking the said provision is the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning the possession of immovable property. It must be clearly recorded by the Executive Magistrate that such a dispute exists and that immediate intervention is necessary to prevent escalation. But in the present case, the impugned order appears to have been passed without due satisfaction being recorded by the learned Magistrate as to the existence of an apprehension of breach of peace. Moreover, the impugned order was issued without following Section 145(3) Cr.P.C., particularly relating to the issuance of notice to the concerned parties. This Court finds some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIRs on record do not disclose a situation justifying the invocation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 5. In view of the foregoing, and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings in Rc.A.683 of 2020 dated 13.11.2020, initiated under Section 5 145 Cr.P.C. in respect of the 1st and 2nd floors of Akshaya Towers in Sy.No.797 of 2011, are hereby set aside. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 23-07-2025 MH 6 204 HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.5658 of 2020 Dt. 23.07.2025 MH