IMPORTANT POINT
When dispute with regard to same subject property is pending in a civil court, parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable before Executive Magistrate.

ORDER

Dr. G. Radha Rani, J.—This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders in proceedings No.A3/5114/2016, dated 17.05.2016 of the 2nd respondent under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief was that the 2nd respondent issued order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. basing on the report given by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kohir on 15.05.2016 that there was dispute in respect of the land in Sy.No.104, 105 and 106 situated at Nagireddypally village of Kohir Mandal in between V. Ramachandra Rao and others and P. Krishnam Raju regarding boundaries of the land. Earlier also a quarrel took place between both the groups regarding the Mango garden vide Crime No.31/2015 and 32/2015 under Sections 447, 427, 323 and 506 IPC. As there was a chance of law and order problem, the Sub Inspector of Police requested the 2nd respondent to promulgate orders under Section 145 Cr.P.C. to prevent law and order situation. Basing on the said report given by the SI of police, the 2nd respondent issued orders under Section 145 Cr.P.C. directing the Tahsildar, Kohir to take possession of the disputed land into Government custody under panchanama until further orders and to keep a watch on the standing mango crop and not to allow anybody to harvest the existing mango crop.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order under revision was wholly illegal improper and incorrect. The 2nd respondent failed to see that when civil suit O.S. No.10 of 2015 was pending on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Zaheerabad between both the parties, he had no jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The dispute was only with regard to an extent of Acs.21.39 gts., of land in part of Sy.Nos.104/ba and 105/ba and 106/ba at Nagireddypally village, Kohir Mandal. However, the 2nd respondent passed an order in respect of the entire land in the aforesaid survey numbers totally exceeding the jurisdiction. Hence, the order under revision was wholly unsustainable illegal, and was liable to be set aside. Dispossessing the petitioner under the guise of the order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was wholly illegal, against law as well as the principles of natural justice. The order was causing a lot of injustice to the petitioner. The order was not passed on sound or tenable grounds and prayed to set aside the order in proceedings No. A3/5114/2016, dated 17.05.2016.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on merits.

6. Perused the record. The record would disclose that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, against the respondents No.3 and 4 and four others in the month of March, 2015 and he also filed I.A No.36 of 2015 seeking the relief of temporary injunction pending disposal of the said suit and the 3rd respondent had filed his written statement in the said suit and counter in the said I.A. and was contesting the matter before the civil court. The petitioner had also filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad on 21.05.2016 and the same was referred to the police for investigation and it was registered as Crime No.87 of 2016 on 03.06.2016 for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 506 and 379 IPC. The orders were passed by the 2nd respondent on 17.05.2016 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. directing the Tahsildar, Kohir to take possession of the disputed land under Government custody till further orders. But no further orders were reported to be promulgated by the 2nd respondent till date. Admittedly, there was standing mango crop in the said land which would need to be taken care of and no final orders were being passed for the past five years.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State o