IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.33947 OF 2018 DATE : 12.12.2025 Between:

Siddharth Coondoo and another …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana & Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring Notice No.C/662/2018 dated 24-8-2018 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Keesara, issued to the Petitioners trying to initiate proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. is illegal, arbitrary, against well settled principles of law and as such set aside /quash the said notice and be pleased to pass..........”

2. Heard Mr.M.Papa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.P.Ajith Varma, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.

3.1: Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to declare the Notice No. C/662/2018, dated 24.08.2018, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. He further submits that this Court, by order dated 20.09.2018, after considering the settled legal position, was pleased to grant an interim direction staying further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice, and the said interim order continues to remain in force.

3.2: It is further submitted that the civil dispute between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents, relating to the same subject property, culminated in a decree in favour of the petitioners in O.S. No. 909 of 2006. Aggrieved by the said decree, respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before this Court, wherein, by order dated 20.09.2018, an interim direction maintaining status quo with respect to the schedule property was granted, which is still operative.

3.3: While the said civil proceedings are pending before the competent Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued the impugned notice under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). It is contended that such invocation of jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C., when the civil dispute is sub judice, is ex facie untenable and amounts to parallel proceedings on the same subject matter. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned notice and for allowing the writ petition.

3.4: In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. & Others [AIR 1985 SC 472], Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey & Others [MANU/SC/0265/2000], and the decision of this Court in Chella Venkata Ramana Reddy & Another v. State of A.P. [2015 (2) ALT (Crl.) 164 (A.P.)]. He contends that these decisions have unequivocally held that parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before an Executive Magistrate are not maintainable when the subject matter is already seized of by a competent Civil Court. The rationale, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is that once a civil court has seized of a property dispute, initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by an Executive Magistrate would amount to interference with the jurisdiction and authority of the civil court.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer, having considered the prevailing circumstances on the ground and in order to preserve public peace and order, invoked Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. by issuing the impugned notice. However, as the operation of the said notice has been stayed by this Court in the present proceedings, no further steps have been taken by the authorities. Considering the passage of time and the pendency of these proceedings, he prays for passi