APHC010596592024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1349/2024 Between: Karanam Anusha And Lalitha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order The Criminal Revision Case is filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/1st party, assailing the Order, dated 24.12.2024, passed in M.C. No.323 of 2024 on the file of Mandal Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Kondapuram, (for short, “the Tahsildar”), whereby the Tahsildar passed the prohibitory orders under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. on a dispute between the parties in a land in Sy.No.216-1 Gudavalluru Village, Kondapuram Mandal. 2. The dispute in question involves between two parties i.e. 1st party: Chimmili Anusha @ Karanam Anusha @ Lalitha w/o bhaskar and two others, 2nd party: Chimmili Ankamma w/o Rangaiah and two others with regard to the land to an extent of Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.216-1 of Gudavalluru Village, Kondapuram Mandal. The Station House Officer, 2 Kondapuram Police Station has filed a requisition stating that a dispute in between both the parties, law and order problem may likely arise and therefore requested the Tahsildar to issue criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. to alert law and order situation. Due to the potential for further conflict and disturbance to public peace, the Tahsildar issued prohibitory orders under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., prompting the petitioner herein/1st party to file the present Criminal Revision Case. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.1/State. Notice sent to respondent No.2 was not yet returned and the notices sent to respondent Nos.3 and 4 were served, but there 1is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 4. It is evident from the record that the petitioner/1st party has filed a petition in the Civil Court seeking an injunction for the contested property through I.A. No.482 of 2024 in O.S. No.188 of 2024 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision reported in U. Ramanjaneyulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1 wherein, this Court outlined the procedure to be adhered to by 1 2020(1) ALD (Crl.) 640 (A.P.) 3 Mandal Executive Magistrates when exercising powers under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sri Siddeshwar Temple Trust Committee vs. Sri Malingaraya Temple Charitable Trust2, wherein, it is observed that once a civil suit is pending between the parties and an injunction has been granted therein, a parallel proceeding under Section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. cannot, in law, take place. 7. The petitioner's counsel contends that the Tahsildar issued the impugned Order without following the prescribed procedure under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. According to the counsel, the Mandal Executive Magistrate, as per the guidelines in the mentioned case, should issue an order stating the grounds for his satisfaction, requiring the involved parties to appear before the Civil Court on a designated date and submit written statements regarding their respective claims to the actual possession of the disputed property. 8. The Tahsildar/Respondent No.2 issued an order prohibiting both parties from entering the disputed site in Sy.No.216-1 of Gudavalluru Village, Kondapuram Mandal. Notably, the impugned Order lacks mention of the Tahsildar's satisfaction leading to a directive for the 2 (2020) 18 SCC 417 4 parties to attend on a specified date and submit written statements, thus deviating from the prescribed procedure under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. 9. Considering that the matter is already subjudice before the competent Civil Court for declaration of title and possession of the disputed property, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, to expedite the disposal of I.A. No.482 of 2024. Given that the petitioner has sought recourse to the Civil Court to establish his rights, the ongoing proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. initiated by the Tahsildar are deemed unnecessary. 10. Drawing upon the aforementioned decisions and its pertinent observations, this Court asserts that, upon receiving information about a potential breach of peace, if any, the Mandal Executive Magistrate is empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against parties responsible for disturbing public peace and tranquility. 11. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the Order, dated 24.12.2024, passed in M.C.No.323 of 2024 by the Mandal Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Kondapuram. Both parties are directed to cooperate with the Civil Court concerned to expedite the resolution of the pending injunction application. 5 Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J. 07.04.2025. Asr 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1349 of 2024 Dated:07.04.2025 Asr