The proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to maintain public order and do not adjudicate property title, focusing instead on actual possession to prevent breaches of peace.

JUDGMENT :

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

1. Heard. Rule.

2. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking following reliefs :

(i) Issue an appropriate writ thereby quash and set aside the order dated 23.9.2022, passed by the respondent in Criminal Case No.2/2022 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ thereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No.197/2022.

(iii) Considering the facts of the case matter may be kindly remanded to the office of respondent No.2 for fresh disposal after considering all the issues involved in case and as stated in the petition.

(iv) Saddle costs of the petition upon the respondents and;

(v) Grant any other relief as deems fit in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice.

3. Brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the petition are as under :

Ghansham Mahadeorao Dahane was the owner of agricultural land at Mouza Ruikhairi, Taluka Nagpur bearing Survey No.20, admeasuring 2.36 H.R. In 2002, he sold the said land admeasuring 0.81 Hec.R to Vijaykumar Parate and, therefore, Survey No.20 divided into two parts. As per the said division Suvey No.20/1 which was remaining land of Ghansham admeasuring 1.45 HR and Survey No.20/2 was in respect of land sold to Vijaykumar Parate admeasuring 0.81 HR. 0.10 HR area which was in possession of the original owner Ghansham was not mentioned in any revenue record though he was in possession of the said portion. The original owner have measured the land in the year 2002 through T.I.L.R. As 0.10 HR land was not mentioned in the name of owner, he again applied for measurement on 15.6.2004. After measurement original owner Ghansham sold Suvey No.1.45 HR to respondent No.1 Bollineni Venkat Ramanyya, as a Director of Kakatiya Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad by registered sale-deed. The respondent No.1 accordingly was in possession of 1 Hectare 45 R. As per the contention of the petitioners, respondent No.1 was also intending to purchase 0.10 HR and entered into an agreement but original owner who was in possession of 0.10 R has sold out the same to the present petitioners. Prior to executing sale-deed said Ghansham initiated process to record his name in revenue record as far as 0.10 R is concerned. The Sub- Divisional Officer passed an order on 20.8.2018 and directed Tahsildar to take entry in the name of legal heirs of Ghansham. The legal heirs of Ghansham executed sale-deed in favour of petitioners to the extent of 0.10 R on 3.9.2020. Accordingly, the name of the petitioners recorded in 7/12 extract and possession was handed over. The petitioners developed said land.

4. It is alleged that as respondent No.1 willing to purchase said portion but the company could not purchase, he filed a report against the present petitioners on 7.2.2022 alleging that present petitioners are attempting to disturb the peaceful possession and committing the breach of peace. By taking cognizance of the said report Police Station Officer submitted report to Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer respondent No.2 initiated proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and restrained the petitioners from disturbing the possession of respondent No.1 without considering that petitioners are also co-owners by passing order on 27.6.2022. The petitioners had challenged the impugned order dated 14.7.2020 by preferring revision before the District Judge, Nagpur bearing Criminal Revision No.197/2022 which was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 23.9.2022. Hence, this petition.

5. The said petition is opposed by the respondent No.1 as well as by the State. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the material facts and on the sole ground the writ petition deserves to be rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioners had suppressed order dated 20.8.2018 passed by the learned Sub-D