When a civil suit concerning title and possession of property is pending, parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are impermissible as they constitute an abuse of process and exceed the Executive Magistrate's preventive jurisdiction.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “the Cr.P.C.”) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNSS”), seeking to quash the docket order dated 26.06.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.21 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, and consequently to set aside the order dated 12.12.2022 in M.C. No.55 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, Srungavarapukota, Vizianagaram District.

2. Smt. T.V.Sridevi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings initiated by the 5th respondent are wholly without jurisdiction, as they stem from a police report under Section 107 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ which is merely preventive in nature and does not empower the Executive Magistrate to decide questions of title or possession. However, the 5th respondent exceeded his authority by recording findings on possession and directing maintenance of status quo, rendering the impugned order illegal. It is further argued that the 5th respondent misconstrued Sections 145 and 147 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. Despite no proper initiation under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ the Magistrate ventured into determining possession, and the reference to Section 147 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is misplaced since the dispute does not relate to any easementary right but concerns title and possession. This reflects clear non-application of mind.

3. The learned counsel further submits that the dispute is already pending before a competent civil court in O.S.No.186 of 2022, and it is a settled principle that parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ should not continue in such circumstances. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. It is also argued that the direction to maintain status quo amounts to granting a civil injunction, which is beyond the powers of the Executive Magistrate and within the exclusive domain of civil courts, thereby indicating patent lack of jurisdiction. Lastly, it is submitted that the revisional Court passed a non-speaking order without assigning reasons, violating principles of natural justice. The initiation of criminal proceedings in a purely civil dispute amounts to abuse of process of law, justifying exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to quash the impugned proceedings.

5. Sri A. Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned proceedings are valid and within the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate, having been initiated on a police report indicating a dispute likely to disturb public peace. In such circumstances, the Magistrate is empowered and duty-bound to act under Section 107 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to prevent breach of peace and maintain law and order. It is submitted that the powers exercised are purely preventive in nature and not intended to adjudicate title or possession. The observation regarding possession is only a prima facie assessment made for maintaining peace and does not amount to a final determination as in civil proceedings.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argues that the pendency of a civil suit does not bar the exercise of preventive jurisdiction. Proceedings under Section 107 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ operate independently to prevent disturbance of public tranquility, and therefore, the Magistrate rightly passed appropriate orders. It is also submitted that mere incorrect mention of statutory provisions does not vitiate the proceedings, as long as the authority