SANA FATIMA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pramod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

(2.) According to the petitioners, vide proceedings dtd. 23/3/2022 respondent No.2 promulgated proceedings under Sec. 145 of Cr.P.C., without serving notices to the petitioners. They have filed a suit vide O.S.No.392 of 2022 against respondent No.4 for perpetual injunction and learned II Addl. Junior Civil Judge " cum " II Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District has granted interim injunction vide order dtd. 13/10/2022 in I.A.No.146 of 2022 in O.S.No.392 of 2022. The said order is on contest. Respondent No.4 did not file any appeal challenging the said order. Even then, without considering the said facts, respondent No.2 has promulgated the proceedings under Sec. 145 of Cr.P.C., in respect of the aforesaid property.

(3.) According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 did not conduct enquiry in terms of Sec. 145 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, petitioners have not filed their statements in terms of Sec. 145 (5) of Cr.P.C. Petitioners have to file counter / statement before respondent No.2 in terms of Sec. 145 (5) of Cr.P.C., contending that there is no dispute exists or has been existed. On filing of such counter/ statement, respondent No.2 has to consider the same and if satisfied, he shall cancel the said order and all further proceedings therein shall be stayed. Respondent No.2 is also having power to cancel the aforesaid order. Therefore, petitioners herein instead of filing the aforesaid statement in terms of Sec. 145 (5) of Cr.P.C., filed the present writ petition.