APHC010067652026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3874/2026 Between: 1. K V SUBRAMANYAM, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O.2ND FLOOR,SOCIETY BUILDING, OPP M.N.M. PETROL BUNK, TIRUPATHI ROAD, PUTTUR. TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. TIRUPATI. TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 517501 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTTUR POLICE STATION, PUTTUR.TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 517501 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTTUR POLICE STATION, PUTTUR.TIRUPATI DISTRICT 517501 5. THE THASILDAR CUM MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, PUTTUR MANDAL, PUTTUR.TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 517501 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3874 OF 2026 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.3 to 5, interfering with civil disputes and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners and his family members with regard to their Property admeasuring total extent of Ac.13.60 Cents situated at Survey Nos.96/1,2,3,5,6,7,98/1,2,6,7,11,10,99/12,13,6,19, 100/1,2,6,7,12, 101/1, 101/2,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14A and 102/3 of No.32-Nesanur Village Accounts, Puttur Mandal, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh and trying to dispossess the Petitioner and his family members from the subject properties by initiating Proceedings under Sec.164 BNSS (Sec.145 of Cr.P.C.) when the matter is seized before civil courts and also ignoring the Decree and Judgment dt.30.07.2024 passed in O.S.No.94 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Puttur and without considering the pendency of A.S.No.68 of 2024 on the file of III Addl. District Judge at Tirupati and pendency of O.S.No.48 of 2025 on the file of Principle Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Puttur, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to 5 not to initiate any Proceedings under Sec.164 BNSS (Sec.145 of Cr.P.C.) nor interfere with civil disputes, including interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner and his family members with regard to subject properties in any manner, in the interest of justice and to pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Sri Devalaraju Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are interfering in civil disputes relating to peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and his family members with regard to their property admeasuring an extent of Ac.13.60 cents situated at Survey Nos. 96/1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 98/1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 10, 99/12, 13, 6, 19, 100/1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 101/1, 101/2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14A and 102/3 of No. 4 32-Nesanur Village Accounts, Puttur Mandal, Tirupati District, and are trying to dispossess the Petitioner and his family members from the subject property by initiating Proceedings under Section 164 BNSS (corresponding to Section 145 of Cr.P.C.). 4. He would further submit that, though the matter is already pending before the Civil Courts, the authorities have ignored the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2024 in O.S.No.94 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. They have also failed to consider the pending A.S.No.68 of 2024 before the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and O.S.No.48 of 2025 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puttur. 5. Sri P.Ajay Babu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioner and third parties. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court in A. Pullamma v. State of A.P.,1 at paragraph No.11 directed the parties therein to approach the Civil Court for their rights in respect of the disputed property by setting aside the order passed by the Mandal Executive Officer therein. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., 2 observed that when a civil litigation is pending for the property about the possession, there was no justification in initiating parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ on the principle that decree of the civil court is binding on the Criminal Court. 12020 SCC OnLine AP 5088 2(1985) 1 SCC 427 5 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey3, at paragraph No.14 observed that parallel proceedings under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ should not continue when the parties are in a position to approach the Civil Court for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of the dispute. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amresh Tiwari supra at paragraph No.14 further clarified that in every case where Civil Suit is filed, Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ would never lie. It was further held that it was only in cases where Civil Suit was for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned could be applied for and granted by the civil court that proceedings under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ should not be allowed to continue. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi)4, at paragraph Nos.24 to 27 held as under: “24. We do not see how it can be contended by any stretch of imagination that the appellants have misappropriated the amount or dishonestly used the amount contrary to any law or contract. In any case, we find that the dispute has the contours of a dispute of civil nature and does not constitute a criminal offence. 25. Having given our anxious consideration, we are of the view that assuming that there is a security deposit of rupees one crore and that he has misappropriated the dispute between the two parties can only be a civil dispute. 26. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , this Court observed as follows : (SCC p. 749, para 13) “13. … Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.” The Court noticed a growing trend in business circles to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases. 3(2000) 4 SCC 440 4(2019) 11 SCC 706 6 27. We find it strange that the complainant has not made any attempt for the recovery of the money of rupees one crore except by filing this criminal complaint. This action appears to be mala fide and unsustainable.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jhummamal v. State of M.P.,5at paragraph No.5 held as under: “5. It may also be relevant to state that the respondent challenged the final order under Section 145(6) of the Criminal Penal Code in a revision before the Sessions Judge. On 27-9-1985, that revision was dismissed. After becoming unsuccessful in the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC and also before civil court in the suit for injunction, the respondent moved the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC. The High Court accepted the petition and quashed the proceedings by following the judgment of this Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. [(1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 98] The operative portion of the High Court order is as follows: “In view of the fact that civil proceedings in respect of the disputed premises is pending before the competent civil court, where interim reliefs have been prayed for and obtained, there appears to be no justification for continuing with the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC pending before the SDM. Shri Tiwari learned counsel submitted that in case the plaintiff's suit is either withdrawn or dismissed, he would be left with no remedy. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U.P. [(1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 98] Section 145 is intended to provide a special remedy for the prevention of breach of peace arising out of a dispute relating to immovable property. Its primary object is to maintain the public peace and not to decide disputes between the contending parties or adjudicate upon the rights of-the parties to possession. Now, that the civil court is seized of the matter, it is desirable that such parallel proceedings in respect of the same subject matter and dispute should not be allowed to continue in the criminal courts as it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court which is one of the grounds for invoking Section 482 CrPC. For the foregoing reasons, this petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The proceedings under Section 145 CrPC pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ujjain, along with the orders passed therein is, therefore, quashed.”” 12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant and Amresh Tiwari supra, there was no justification for the Petitioner to approach the police or the learned Executive Magistrate. The learned Executive Magistrate ought to have directed both parties to seek appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court. 5(1988) 4 SCC 452 7 13. For the above reasons, and in view of civil disputes pending between the parties before the competent Civil Court, the respondent police are directed not to interfere further in the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and third parties. The respondent No.5, Mandal Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar is further directed not to invoke the proceedings under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C’/Section 164 of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’ in respect of any pending civil disputes before the competent Court of law. However, it is the responsibility of the petitioner and third parties to maintain law and order in respect of the disputed property 14. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.02.2026 Pmk 8 239 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3874 of 2026 Date: 19.02.2026 Pmk