1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.397 OF 2009. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2041 OF 2009. Kushalchand S/o Ganpati Birla and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.R.Mantri, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent No. 5. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 28.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge communication issued vide outward No. 2 605/2009 dated 25.3.2009 and report to take further action in order to initiate proceedings U/s 145 of the Cr.P.C. 3. It appears that the report was submitted by the Executive Magistrate, Nandurbar vide communication Annexure (C) dated 3l.3.2009 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nandurbar, to initiate proceedings U/s 145 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that a notice has been issued by the Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Nandurbar, calling upon the petitioners as to why proceedings U/s 145 of the Cr.P.C. be not initiated. Mr.Mantri, would submit that such proceedings can not be initiated when the Civil dispute is pending before the Court vide Special Civil Suit No.70/1993, involving the property in dispute. 4. Mr.Patil, learned A.P.P. states that so far no final decision is taken about the proceedings U/s 145 of the Cr.P.C. and no preliminary order is passed under sub-section (1) 3 of Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. In view of such statement, the petition appears to be premature. 5. The petitioners are at liberty to file their written submissions before the Executive Magistrate and agitate all the necessary points and their objections regarding initiation of the proceedings U/s 145 of the Cr.P.C. 6. The learned Executive Magistrate shall consider the representation/written submissions of the petitioners and may thereafter pass appropriate order as per the law. Still, however, if any adverse preliminary order is rendered U/s 145 of the Cr.P.C. then the property in dispute shall not be taken over for a period of three (3) weeks from the date of communication of such order to the petitioners in order to facilitate the petitioners to approach the Revisional Court in the meanwhile. The learned Magistrate shall pass such self-operative stay order to his own adverse order if he would decide to proceed U/s 145(1) of the Cr.P.C. The prohibitory order issued by the Police Inspector 4 dt.9.4.2009 (Annexure D) is quashed as the same is without jurisdiction. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. Criminal Application No.2041/2009, disposed of as infructuous. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp39709