IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1806 OF 2010 Between: Nusi Pedda Rama Krishna Reddy & 8 others …Petitioners And 1. The State Rep. by the Mandal Executive Magistrate Gospadu (M), Kurnool District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & 8 others … Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1806 OF 2010 ORDER: By the impugned order, dated 20.08.2010, in M.C.No.25 of 2010, the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Gospadu, promulgated proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. restraining both ‘A Party’ persons consisting of nine in number and ‘B Party’ persons consisting of eight in number from entering into land in S.Nos.202 and 207/1 of M.Krishnapuram Village of Gospadu Mandal. The petitioners herein are in ‘A Party’. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that simply on information furnished by the Police Officer, the Mandal Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to promulgate the order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. straight away restraining both the parties from entering into the land. Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. contemplates issuing of preliminary notices to the parties to appear before the Executive Magistrate and to file written statements. Thereafter, the Executive Magistrate has to conduct enquiry into the case as if it is a summons case and record evidence to be let in by both the parties. It is only thereafter, the Executive Magistrate can pass appropriate order relating to the disputed property on the ground that the dispute may result in breach of peace. Without following the procedure prescribed under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the Executive Magistrate jumped to the conclusion about likelihood of disturbance to breach of peace, merely basing on information furnished before him by the Police Officer. 3. Be that as it may, now there is no doubt that subject matter of the dispute is pending before the Junior Civil Judge, Allagadda, by way of a civil suit filed by five of the petitioners against the Revenue Officers and two of the ‘B Party’ persons. When the civil Court has seized the dispute, the Executive Magistrate may not interfere in the dispute. If necessary both the parties will approach the civil Court and seek appropriate interim as well as final reliefs. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate is inappropriate and is not in accordance with law. 4. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Gospadu, under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 28, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1806 OF 2010 December 28, 2010 KL