IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3327 & 3842 OF 2009 Between: CRLP.No. 3327 of 2009 Dr.Syed Vilayat & Anr. .. Petitioners-A1 & A2 V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of AP Hyderabad & Ors. .. Respondents-Complnt. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri M.Damodar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Addl.Public Prosecutor Between: CRLP.No. 3842 of 2009 Karre Kistaiah & Ors. .. Petitioners- Accused V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of AP Hyderabad & Ors. .. Respondents-Complnt. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri S.Suryaprakasa Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Addl.Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : (common order follows) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 3327 & 3842 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.3327 of 2009 and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.3842 of 2009 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. Both the criminal petitions are filed by the respective petitioners to quash the proceedings in MC.No.B/804/2008, dated 16-02-2009 on the file of the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crime No.244 of 2008 on the file of Santoshnagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. There is a dispute in regard to land of an extent of Acs:2-00 in survey Nos. 48 and 49 and town survey No. 174 F-47 of Madannapet village near Santoshnagar colony, Hyderabad. The petitioners in both the criminal petitions claimed ownership and possession in respect of the said land. The petitioners in Crl.P.No. 3842 of 2009 filed a civil suit, in OS.No.3586 of 2004 on the file of the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents. The learned trial court after due trial dismissed the suit stating that the petitioners in Crl.P.No.3842 of 2009 could not establish their possession over the suit schedule land and also holding that when the possession is not established the plaintiffs therein are not entitled for any injunction or any equitable relief. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners in Crl.P.No.3842 of 2009 filed an appeal suit and the said appeal was dismissed for default and thereafter an application was filed by them to set aside the dismissal order and to restore the appeal suit, which is now pending. In the meanwhile both parties gave reports against each other in Santoshnagar Police Station stating that one party attacked the other party and that they were trying to occupy the schedule land by force. They also sought in their respective reports to provide protection to their llives. Basing on the said reports, the Police Santoshnagar registered a case in Cr.No.243 of 2008 under section 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Cr.No. 244 of 2008 under section 448, 447 r/w 34 IPC and they say that they are investigating the case. The police also submitted report to the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad and basing on the said report the Special Executive Magistrate initiated proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. The learned Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, having knowledge of the entire civil litigation between the parties and being very much aware of the fact that the competent civil courts are seized of the matter issued proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. in the nature of preliminary order under section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. directing the parties to appear before him for enquiry. Challenging the said order, these criminal petitions have been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings before the learned Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.3327 of 2009 relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in RAM SUMER PURI MAHANT V/s. STATE OF UP AND ORS[1] , wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceedings under section 145 of the Code would not be justified. The parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. Decision of Allahabad High Court, Reversed. 5. In the instant case also the parties approached the civil court to adjudicate upon the dispute relating to possession and now the said dispute is pending consideration before the appellate court and in such an event the learned Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. and the proceedings being illegal and liable to be quashed. 6. Consequently, the proceedings in MC.No.B/804/2008, dated 16- 2-2009 on the file of Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Both the criminal petitions are allowed. ________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 20-10-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3327 & 3842 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER CIRCULATION NO. 37 DATE 20-10-2011 COURT MASTER: I s L COMPUTER NO. 43 [1] ) AUR 1985 SUPREME COURT 472