BALMUKUND GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of a report dated 7-5-2001 given to the Inspector of Police, Tukaram Gate P.S., alleging that A and B parties mentioned therein are creating trouble with un-social elements and are disturbing peace and tranquility in the locality at Kranti Venkateswara Apartments situated a Teachers Colony, Maredpally, Secunderabad, the learned Special Executive Magistrate registered a case in M.C.No.290 of 2001 and issued preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. on 4-5-2001 by directing the parties mentioned therein to appear before him on 28-5-2001. This petition is filed to quash the said proceedings in M.C.No.290 of 2001.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners who are shown as 'B' party in the M.C. proceedings is that Pushpa Gupta, wife of the first petitioner, along with her daughter Smt.Sudha Gupta and grand son Vineet Gupta purchased three flats in the 5th floor bearing Nos.501 to 503 in Kranti Venkateswara Apartments by paying the entire sale consideration under a registered sale deed and that 'A' parties mentioned in the M.C. proceedings entered into an agreement to construct flats therein, but failed to complete the construction and deliver possession of the flats to them as per the contract and so they filed proceedings before the District Consumer Redressal Forum against the developer. It is also their case that when the developer constructed a Pent house without permission, a suit in O.S.No.980 of 1999 for mandatory injunction and demolition of unauthorized structures was filed and the same was decreed on 4-1-2000 and that the wife of the first petitioner filed O.S.No.274 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against respondents 2 and 3 and others seeking a decree for perpetual injunction restraining respondents 2 and 3 and others from interfering with the construction work taken up by her in the flats and that in I.A.No.659 of 2001 filed in that suit, the Court passed an order of interim injunction against respondents 2 and 3 and others and that respondents got issued the proceedings in the question only with a view to get over the order of injunction obtained by the wife of the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on RAM SUMER PURI MAHANT vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS1 and REVU KRISHNAMURTHY AND ANOTHER vs. PONAMANDA VENKATESWARA RAO AND OTHERS2 contended that since civil proceedings in respect of the same property are pending, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the respondents relying on HARIJAN YELLAIAH ALIAS MADIGA YELLUGA vs. STATE OF A.P.REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR3 and JHUNAMAL vs. STATE OF M.P.4 contended that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and civil proceedings can go on simultaneously and so there are no grounds to quash the proceedings initiated by the learned Magistrate.