BALMUKUND GUPTA Vs. STATE OF A P

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 unsocial elements and are disturbing peace and tranquility in the locality at Kranti Vekateswara Apartments situated at Teachers Colony, Maredpally, Secunderabad, the learned Special Executive Magistrate registered a case in MC No.290 of 2001 and issued preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.PC 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 MC No.290 of 2001.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, who are shown as 'B' party in the MC proceedings, is that Pushpa Gupta, wife of the first petitioner, along with her daughter Smt. Sudha Gupta and grand son Vjneet 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 MC, 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 OS No.980 of 1999 for mandatory injunction and demolition of unauthorised structures was filed and the same was decreed on 4-1 -2000 and that the wife of the first petitioner filed OS 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 IA 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 v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1985 SC 472 and Revu Krishnamurthy and another v. Ponamanda Venkateswara Rao and others, 1994 (2) ALT 54 contended that since civil proceedings in respect of the same property are pending, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel for the respondents relying on Harijan Yellaiah Alias Madiga Yelluga v. State of A. P. Rep. By Public Prosecutor, 1980 (2) APLJ 237 and Jhunamal v. State of M.P., AIR 1988 SC 1973, contended that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC and civil proceedings can go on simultaneously and so there are no grounds to quash the proceedings initiated by the learned Magistrate.