Executive Magistrate on perusal of the material on record passed the order by exercising the power under Section 145 of the Code directing both parties not to enter into the lands till the dispute is closed to maintain law and order

 held that(i) Admittedly, impugned order has been passed when the civil suit is pending between the parties and the petitioners obtained a favourable order of injunction on merits in their favour. When the competent civil court is already dealing with the civil dispute relating to the subject property and order of an injunction passed in the matter in favour of the petitioners, the apprehension of the concerned Police and order passed by the Executive Magistrate on the terms that the dispute may lead to breach of peace in the village is only mere apprehension but not with any substance. Continuing the proceedings vide impugned order is abuse of process of law, which is liable to be quashed.

APHC010373562020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6049/2020

Between:

1. ADDANKI VENKANNA BABU, S/O LATE

VEERARAGHAVULU, CULTIVATION, R/O SULTHANAGARM

VILLAGE, MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

2. ADDANKI VENKATESWARAMMA, W/O LATE

VEERARAGHAVULU CULTIVATION, R/O SULTHANAGARM

VILLAGE, MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. THE STATE THROUGH S H O, BANDAR TALUKA POLICE

STATION, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP BY

ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.

AMARAVATHI

2. THE MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE AND TAHSILDAR,

MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

3. AREPALLI VENKATA PRASAD, S/O.JANAKIRAMAIAH,

HINDU CULTIVATION R/O.SULTHANAGARAM VILLAGE,

MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

2.K V ADITYA CHOWDARY

2024:APHC:17884

2

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19731

is filed by the Petitioners, seeking to quash the

proceedings against them in M.C.No.245 of 2020 on the file of the

Court of Mandal Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Machilipatnam

Mandal.

2. Heard Sri T.Manikanta, learned counsel representing Sri

Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

representing the State and Sri K.Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel

representing respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the civil

suit is pending between the parties and injunction order was passed

on merits in favour of the petitioners. It is stated that the impugned

order was passed and the matter is sent to Civil Court. The

Executive Magistrate cannot pass such order under Section 145 of

the Code. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of

coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.3985 of 2018,

dated 18.04.2018 between Vaddu Rama Pulla Reddy Vs. State of

A.P., through SHO Gadivemula P.S., Kurnool District rep. By its

Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and

Others.

1

for short “Code”

2024:APHC:17884

3

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the

impugned order was passed by Executive Magistrate basing on the

report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluka Police

Station, Machilipatnam. Learned Executive Magistrate on perusal of

the material on record passed the order by exercising the power

under Section 145 of the Code directing both parties not to enter into

the lands till the dispute is closed to maintain law and order. Learned

counsel prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view

that the petition is liable to be allowed in the following reason:

(i) Admittedly, impugned order has been passed when the

civil suit is pending between the parties and the petitioners obtained

a favourable order of injunction on merits in their favour. When the

competent civil court is already dealing with the civil dispute relating

to the subject property and order of an injunction passed in the

matter in favour of the petitioners, the apprehension of the

concerned Police and order passed by the Executive Magistrate on

the terms that the dispute may lead to breach of peace in the village

is only mere apprehension but not with any substance. Continuing

the proceedings vide impugned order is abuse of process of law,

which is liable to be quashed.

6. In that view, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

proceedings against the petitioners in M.C.No.245 of 2020.

2024:APHC:17884

4

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

 ______________________________________

 JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date : 26.04.2024

JLV

2024:APHC:17884

5

178

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.6049 of 2020

Dt.26.04.2024

JLV

2024:APHC:17884