THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3216 of 2008 DATE: 24-03-2011 Between: East West Pavilion Plot Owner’s Welfare Association .. Petitioner And The State, through Inspector of Police, Shamirpet Police Station, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and 3 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3216 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in order No.L/2018/2008 dated 08.05.2008 under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. and its consequential order dated 08.05.2008 directing the respondent No.4 to take possession of the land admeasuring Ac.13-02 guntas in Sy.No.630 and Ac.2-38 guntas in Sy.No.625 situated at Lalgadi Malakpet village of Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner is the East West Pavilion Plot Owner’s Welfare Association and according to them their members have purchased individual plots from their vendor and they are in possession of the said property. As per the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C., there were disputes between one Vanka Pratap, Vittal Kusuma and Pitla Rajaiah with regard to ownership of the property and also with regard to the authority to sell the plots. The said proceedings were initiated by the 2nd respondent on the complaint given by the Inspector of Police, Shamirpet. Whereas, the Inspector of Police, Shamirpet has alleged that there is breach of peace in the vicinity of land, as both the parties are quarrelling with each other and requested for promulgation of orders under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. to prevent untoward incidents. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent without giving any notice to any of the parties, has passed the impugned order on 08.05.2008 directing both the parties to forbid from any disturbance from possession of the land in dispute until determination of rights of the parties by the competent Court and consequently an order of attachment was issued under Section 146 of Cr.P.C. on the same day directing the 4th respondent herein to take possession of the land in dispute into the custody and to hold attachment until the orders passed by the competent Court to determine the rights of the parties. According to the petitioner, they have purchased the plots individually and they are in possession of the plots and they are no way concerned with the dispute between Vanka Pratap, Vittal Kusuma and Pitla Rajaiah and admittedly no notice was given to the petitioner, who are in possession of the schedule property. The respondent No.2 without issuing any notice to any of the parties, passed the impugned order dated 08.05.2008 and without following the provisions under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the continuation of the said orders is an abuse of process of law, as such the same is liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed as prayed for. ___________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 24-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3216 of 2008 DATE: 24-03-2011 MR