APHC010631672023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1179/2023 Between: Smt Malleti Rama Devi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. J RAVI KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The Criminal Revision Case, has been filed by the petitioners herein/ A-party, assailing the Order, dated 11.12.2023, passed in D.Dis.No.1909/2023/SA-C on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District (for short, ‘R.D.O.’), whereby the R.D.O. passed the protection orders in favour of the B-Party under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., on a dispute between A and B parties to an extent of Ac.0.33 cents in Survey No. 3/2A of Mulakuddu Village. 2 2. The dispute involves two parties: A-Party-Molleti Ramadevi, W/o Chittibabu, and B-Party- Yarabala Prasada Rao, S/o Late Ramanayya, over Ac.0.33 cents of land in Survey No. 3/2A of Mulakuddu Village. The Station House Officer, Bheemunipatnam, submitted a requisition to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Bheemunipatnam, noting that the parties are contesting title to the land and may disturb public peace. In response, the RDO initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and issued protection orders in favour of the B-Party, directing the police to ensure his access to the disputed land. The A-Party was restrained from obstructing the B-Party, based on documents submitted. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the A-Party filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A-party and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. None appeared for the Respondent No.5/B-Party despite listing the matter under the caption ‘for orders’. Having no other option, heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A-Party, this Court is inclined to pass the order based on the material available on the record. 4. It is evident from the record that the petitioner is shown as ‘A-Party’ in the proceedings before the R.D.O. The record further reveals that Respondent No.5/B-Party filed O.S. No.211 of 2022 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam, seeking a permanent injunction against the 2nd petitioner (husband of the 1st petitioner). Additionally, the 2nd petitioner and two others filed O.S. No.1382 of 2016 before the Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, also seeking a permanent injunction. Thus, both parties have initiated civil suits concerning the same disputed property. Despite being aware of the pendency of these suits, the Revenue Divisional Officer proceeded to issue the impugned order under Section 145 Cr.P.C.. 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 Mandal 1 2020(1) ALD (Crl.) 640 (A.P.) 3 Executive Magistrates when exercising powers under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. 6. In Sri Siddeshwar Temple Trust Committee vs. Sri Malingaraya Temple Charitable Trust2, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the R.D.O. issued the impugned Order without following the prescribed procedure under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel, the R.D.O., 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 Courts on a designated date and submit written statements regarding their respective claims to the actual possession of the disputed property. 8. Respondent No.3/R.D.O. issued a protection order permitting the B-Party to enter the site purchased to an extent of Ac.0.33 in Sy.No.3/2A of Mulakuddu Village, while restraining the Petitioner/A-Party from entering the said land. However, the impugned order fails to reflect the RDO’s satisfaction regarding the likelihood of a breach of peace, nor does it contain any direction for the parties to appear on a specified date and submit written statements, thereby deviating from the procedure mandated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the fact that the dispute is already subjudice before competent Civil Courts in O.S.No.1382 of 2016 and O.S. No.211 of 2022, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, and the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam, to expedite the disposal of the respective suits. Since both the parties have already approached the Civil Courts to assert their rights, the parallel proceedings initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are rendered unnecessary. 2 (2020) 18 SCC 417 4 10. Relying on the above observations and established principles, this Court holds that upon receiving information regarding a potential breach of peace, the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against those likely to disturb public peace and tranquility. 11. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the Order, dated 11.12.2023 passed in D.Dis.No.1909/2023/ SA-C by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue, Divisional Officer, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Both parties are directed to cooperate with the Civil Courts concerned to expedite the resolution of the pending suits. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 09.04.2025. MS 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1179 of 2023 Date :09.04.2025 MS