ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANARAO, J.

Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment dated 03.08.2023 in M.C.No.15 of 2023 passed by the learned Mandal Executive Officer-Mandal Tahsildar, Peddamudium Mandal, Peddamudium, YSR Kadapa District.

2. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners while reiterating the grounds of revision submits that the impugned orders issued by the Mandal Executive Officer-Mandal Tahsildar, Peddamudium Mandal, Peddamudium are manifestly contrary to law and stand vitiated by material irregularity. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Respondent No.2, in the absence of any demonstrable urgency or threat to public peace, constitutes a clear transgression of settled legal principles governing executive intervention under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ It is further contended that the Respondent No.2 has erroneously passed orders in M.C.No.15/2023, whereby both the A and B parties have been restrained from entering the subject land. Such a direction, issued without due consideration of the subsisting civil proceedings, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Respondent No.2 failed to appreciate that the dispute pertaining to the subject property is already seized by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.219/2022, pending adjudication before the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu. In light of the said proceedings, the invocation of powers under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ by the learned Executive Magistrate is impermissible and amounts to judicial impropriety. It is a settled proposition of law that once a dispute concerning immovable property is sub judice before a competent civil forum, the Executive Magistrate is precluded from exercising jurisdiction under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Any parallel adjudication by the executive authority not only undermines the authority of the Civil Court but also violates the doctrine of separation of powers. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondents have failed to place on record any material evidence indicating the existence of a law and order situation warranting immediate executive intervention. The suppression of the pendency of O.S.No.219/2022 before the Civil Court further renders the impugned proceedings legally untenable and procedurally defective.

4. In view of the foregoing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the Respondent No.2, during the pendency of the civil dispute, amount to an abuse of the process of law and are liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and to uphold the primacy of civil adjudication in property disputes.

5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the Mandal Executive Officer-cum-Tahsildar acted within the bounds of law and procedural propriety while invoking Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ She asserts that the impugned order was passed after a careful evaluation of witness testimonies, which revealed a palpable risk to public peace arising from the property dispute. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the preventive measure, restraining both parties from entering the disputed land, was a neutral and necessary step to avert escalation and preserve public order. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argues that the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate any procedural impropriety, misapplication of law, or miscarriage of justice warranting interference by the revisional court and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the invocation of Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ by