BANALA SUBHASHINI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugning the proceedings of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Unguturu of Krishna District in M.C. No.43 of 2016 dated 03.12.2016 in respect of land in Survey No.200/3 of Ac.3.12 cents of Telaprolu Village, from the report of the revision petitioner herein by name, Banala Subhashini, to the Station House Officer, Unguturu, that resulted from the police forwarded to the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, stating there is law and order problem from breach of peace in relation to the land, the Mandal Executive Magistrate passed an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. preventing both sides from entering the land in question, despite referring to the factum of earlier civil litigation allowed from O.S.No.269 of 1984 on the file of Sub-Court, Gudivada and the matters went upto the Supreme Court, apart from W.P.No.12521 of 2016 in this Court, in relation to issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of the revision 3rd respondent, and even by the time, the report received, O.S.No.65 of 2016, a suit for declaration of title and for injunction maintained by the 3rd respondent against the revision petitioner, is pending on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, in view of the factum of both parties are seeking cancellation of the registered sale transactions effected by Smt.B.Bhanu and also as regards possession over the property.

(2.) In the factual background supra in nutshell, heard both sides at length and perused the impugned order, gist of which referred supra and also the provisions and propositions on the scope of law.

(3.) The law is well settled by consistent expressions of the Apex Court at least from Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., 1985(1) SCC 427 that was though differed in Jhummamal @ Devandas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1988(4) SCC 452, to some extent, in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (supra), it is observed categorically that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed, in view of the civil proceedings already initiated and are pending. Whereas, in Jhummamal (supra), it is observed that, merely because a civil suit is pending that does not mean proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should be set at naught and Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (supra) does not laid down any such broad proposition. In Jhummamal (supra), it is observed further saying "We clarify that we are not stating that in every case where a civil suit is filed, Section 145 proceedings would never lie. It is only in cases where civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property is concerned can be applied for and be granted by the civil Court, then proceedings under Section 145 should not be allowed to continue. This is because civil Court is competent to decide the question of title as well as possession between the parties and the orders of the civil Court would be binding on the concerned Executive Magistrate."