HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION NO.778 OF 2010 DATE:20.07.2010 Between: Smt C. Padmavathamma and 2 others …… Petitioners. And: State of A.P., rep. by its PP, High Court of AP. Hyderabad and 2 others …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION NO.778 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioners belonging to ‘A’ party questioning order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle in Criminal Revision Petition No.37 of 2009 setting aside order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kurabalakata in M.C.No.1 of 2009. 2. Subject-matter of this litigation under Section 145 Cr.P.C before the Mandal Executive Magistrate is land in S.No.352 of Angallu village. By order dated 19.10.2009, the Magistrate while directing both parties i.e., ‘A’ party and ‘B’ party to file written statements of their respective claims as to actual possession of the said land, declared that ‘A’ party and ‘B’ party are in possession of the land in S.No.352 of Angallu and are entitled to retain such possession until ousted by due course of law; and forbidding both the parties from causing disturbance of their possession in the meantime. In Criminal Revision Petition filed by petitioners of ‘B’ party, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed and set aside order passed by the Executive Magistrate. A reading of the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, it shows that the Additional Sessions Judge passed the said order after calling for entire file from the Executive Magistrate. The Additional Sessions Judge held that the order passed by the Executive Magistrate is not correct as no preliminary order is passed and no enquiry was conducted before passing the final order. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that treating the impugned order of the Executive Magistrate as preliminary order, the Executive Magistrate may be directed to proceed with further enquiry. This Court is of the opinion that such further enquiry is not necessary having regard to the fact that the field of controversy is seized by the civil courts. Though there were no civil suits pending by 19.10.2009 when the Executive Magistrate promulgated the order under Section 145 Cr.P.C, as on today, there is no dispute that 5 suits are pending with regard to subject-matter of this litigation, in various civil courts at various stages. Therefore, it is open to both the parties to approach the civil court and seek necessary orders from the civil court and proceed accordingly. Section 145 Cr.P.C is intended to take preventive steps for maintaining law and order and to forbid breach of peace in the locality. I do not find any valid reasons to come to a different conclusion from that of the Additional Sessions Judge. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. 3. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:20.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION NO.778 OF 2010 Date:20.07.2010 Gk.