The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a preliminary inquiry, consideration of civil disputes, and the need to ascertain possession and the existence of an emergency before passing orders under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/second party being aggrieved by the order passed by IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Crl.RP.No.171/2016 dated 18.02.2017.

2. Brief facts leading to the case are that, respondent No.2 is the Trust in the name of Sri Siddeshwara Temple Trust. The said Trust is also having the property and ancient big temple in the village Melkunda. The said temple is having so many devotees surrounding the village and one Baradi family has donated the land bearing Sy.No.114 measuring 30 acres of land to the said Siddeshwara Temple and the said family is looking after the affairs of the temple. The said Trust decided to develop the temple and as such, a Trust was constituted and registered on 10.11.1998. But subsequently, they learnt that some antisocial elements belonging to Kuruba community have created another Trust committee in the name of Malingaray Charitable Trust and tried to inaugurate on 06.05.2016 without any base over the property belonging to Siddeshwara Temple. In the meanwhile, a suit for injunction was filed in O.S.No.236/2016 by respondent No.2 and obtained the injunction against the said Trust. It is further alleged that the said temple is performing jathra as per the custom and in order to have security and protection, a request was made to respondent No.1-Taluka Executive Magistrate to provide the security. But respondent No.1 by joining his hands with Kuruba community people on 18.10.2016 passed an illegal order without any basis by taking the law into their hands and issued direction to stop the jathra proceedings by alleging that the members of the Trust committee and other people by taking law into their hands are disturbing the peace. He has further passed an order under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., in criminal proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Taluka Executive Magistrate on 29.10.2016 passed an order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., without considering the civil suit pending. Against the said order, a criminal revision petition came to be filed in Crl.R.P.No.171/2016 before the IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the petition by order dated 18.02.2017 by setting aside the order of the Taluka Executive Magistrate and while passing the order, Tahsildar, Kalaburagi, was directed to deliver the possession of the immovable property bearing panchayat No.1-44 to respondent No.2-Trust. Being aggrieved by the said order, the second party is present before the Court.

3. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that though there is interim order of the Civil Court, the Taluka Executive Magistrate ought not to have passed any order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Though respondent No.2 was not in possession of the property, by virtue of the order, they have been put in possession. He further contends that the Taluka Executive Magistrate should have passed a preliminary order before passing the final order for having satisfied that the dispute is likely to cause breach of peace and there is an emergency to make such order for the purpose of protection of property in dispute. But the Magistrate without satisfying the conditions by exceeding the jurisdiction has passed the impugned order and as such, the said order is illegal. In order to substantiate the said fact, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Kartarsingh Narainsingh and another vs Lallusingh Padamsingh and others reported in AIR 1962 MADHYA PRADESH 104 (V 49 C 36). He has further contended that the said order is capricious and malafide and without application of mind. He has also contended that the only point which could have been considered by the learned Sessions Judge is that, who is in possession of the property and if there was any disturbance, the possession of the property should have been given to th