drp {1} Cri. Application No.4744/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4744 OF 2010 1. Satish Keshav Gaikwad APPLICANTS Age-40 years, Occ-Agri 2. Nityanand Keshav Gaikwad Age-34 years, Occ-Agri 3. Dinesh Keshav Gaikwad Age-36 years, Occ-Agri All R/o Waigaon, Tq-Udgir Dist-Latur VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through District Superintendent of Police, Latur 2. The Executive Magistrate & Tahasildar, Udgir 3. Vijaykumar Raghunath Gaikwad Age-58 years, Occ-Agri 4. Shivaji Raghunath Gaikwad Age-61 years, Occ-Agri 5. Ashok Raghunath Gaikwad Age-53 years, Occ-Agri 6. Subhash Ram Belkunde Age-56 years, Occ-Agri drp {2} Cri. Application No.4744/2010 All R/o Waigaon, Tq-Udgir Dist-Latur ....... Mr. V.D.Sonawane, Advocate for the applicants Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State Mr. A.V.Patil, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 6 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th April 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 6 tendered copy of affidavit in reply. Taken on record. Copy of affidavit is furnished to learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties this application is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By this application, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the notice and proceedings bearing No.2010- MAG-145-CRPC-CR-2 dated 01.10.2010, issued by Executive Magistrate, Udgir u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of land Gat No.127 situated at village Waigaon, Tq-Udgir, Dist-Latur. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP and learned counsel for drp {3} Cri. Application No.4744/2010 respondents No.3 to 6 and perused the grounds of objections in the application so also the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. It appears from the rival submissions that RCS No. 198/1981 was filed by the predecessor in title of the applicants before Civil Judge Senior Division, Udgir for declaration and perpetual injunction. Along with the civil suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed by the plaintiff. The temporary injunction application was contested by the predecessor in title of respondents No.3 to 6. Ultimately the application for interim injunction was allowed. The matter went up to high Court and the interim injunction granted in favour of the predecessor in title of the applicants was confirmed. It appears that ultimately the suit came to be decreed in toto, vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2009. It further appears that the judgment and decree passed in the said suit was challenged by the present respondents No.3 to 6 by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.47/2009 before Additional District Judge, Udgir. In the said appeal, an order, to maintain status quo, has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Udgir. It further appears that in view of the order of status quo, both the parties are trying to establish that they are in possession of the suit land, which lead to filing of complaints against each other. It further appears that due to the counter complaints, proceedings u/s 145 of Criminal Procedure Code was commenced against the applicants as well as against respondents drp {4} Cri. Application No.4744/2010 No.3 to 6. 6. While supporting the impugned order, learned APP urged that to maintain law and order, as there are counter complaints, the learned Magistrate has rightly initiated the proceedings u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Considering the rival submissions, it prima facie appears that on 06.08.1981, when the order of interim injunction was passed, which was confirmed while decreeing the suit, the applicants were in lawful possession of the land Gat No.127. The status quo directed to be maintained by the lower appellate court, does not mean that the lower appellate court has inducted anyone in possession of the said property. When the competent civil court has granted relief in favour of the applicants in respect of the suit property and unless this finding is reversed, the revenue / police authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere with the said finding recorded by competent civil court, by initiating proceedings u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Though notice of proceedings u/s 145 is also served on respondents No.3 to 6, yet learned counsel for these respondents has fairly stated that the Executive Magistrate has wrongly initiated proceedings u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. For the above discussion, the application succeeds in terms of prayer clause “C” of the application. The Notice and drp {5} Cri. Application No.4744/2010 proceedings bearing No.2010-MAG-145-CRPC-CR-2 dated 01.10.2010 issued by Executive Magistrate u/s 145 of Criminal Procedure Code in respect of Gat No.127 situated at village Waigaon are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is thus made absolute as indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln4744-10