IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7333 of 2008 BETWEEN 1. Smt. Chilakala Ramanamma 2. Dongupalle Sahadevi … Petitioners AND 1. The State rep. By the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Nandyal, Kurnool District 2. The Mandal Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar 3. Smt. Noone Ramalakshmamma 4. Gukaraju Rameshbabu … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7333 OF 2008 ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.194 of 2008 dated 29.10.2008 on the file of the Court of the Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Full Additional Charge (F.A.C) Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2. Basing on the report submitted by the 1st respondent i.e. Station House Officer, II-town Police Station, Nandyal, Kurnool District, the 2nd respondent i.e. the Mandal Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Nandyal, Kurnool District passed an order under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) in M.C.No.194 of 2008 dated 29.10.2008 directing the petitioners and Smt. Chilakala Sahadevi not to enter over the land in Survey No.2232/4 to an extent of Ac.0.18 cents in Nandyal town. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 3. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the 2nd respondent i.e. the Mandal Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Nandyal, Kurnool District is sustainable or not? P O I N T: 4. As seen from the record, the petitioners and their family members filed O.S.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal for grant of permanent injunction against the 4th respondent and two others. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal granted temporary injunction in respect of the said property there under by an order dated 08.02.2008 in I.A.No.19 of 2008 in O.S.No.5 of 2008. The said injunction is subsisting and admittedly no Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred. 5. The 5th respondent herein also filed O.S.No.21 of 2008 against the petitioners and he also filed I.A.No.74 of 2008 for a grant of temporary injunction but he did not get any favourable orders in the said I.A. but as on this day the orders in I.A.19 of 2008 in O.S.No.5 of 2008 is operating. 6. It is urged that the petitioners also filed private complaint before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal against the respondents 3 and 4 for the offences under Section 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’) and the same was referred for police investigation. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the civil disputes are pending between the parties herein which are subject matters in O.S.No.5 of 2008 and O.S.No.21 of 2008. When competent Civil Court has already ceased the matter, issuing any orders under Section 145 of Cr.P.C on the report of the 1st respondent, in my view, is erroneous. Therefore, no order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C can be passed and such a power would not be available to the Magistrate. Moreover, the direction given to the petitioners and the respondent not to interfere into the land is contrary to Section 145 of Cr.P.C and without jurisdiction pursuant to the orders in I.A.No.19 of 2008 in O.S.No.5 of 2008. Therefore, viewing from any angle, there is no basis for the respondent to presume that there is likelihood of breach of peace when injunction is granted in I.A.No.19 of 2008. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate is not sustainable. Hence, the order in M.C.No.194 of 2008 is quashed and the criminal petition is allowed. However, the parties are at liberty to take appropriate steps before the Civil Court for expeditious disposal. ____________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J March 30, 2011 SP THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7333 of 2008 March 30, 2011 SP