Telangana High Court
Rathod Amber Singh vs The State Of Telangana on 20 July, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11547 of 2018
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners for quash of proceedings against them in Proceedings No.A/178/2018, 22.06.2018 issued by Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Jainoor Mandal, Adilabad District under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The facts in brief are that on the report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Jainoor in Report No.Lr.No.C.No.G1/56/2018 dated 11.06.2018 that a dispute is likely to induce a breach of peace between two community people i.e., Rathod Amber Singh, Rathod Vijay Prakash and other Adivasi community people living at Ashepally Village of Jainoor Mandal over the land in Sy.No.39/1 to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas situated at Somjiguda, H/o. Ashepally Village of Jainoor, the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Jainoor called all the parties and directed to give a written statement of their respective claims as to the fact of actual possession of the said land. The Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, on being satisfied by due inquiry, held that it cannot be decided as to the 2 legal right of possession of either of the parties as the land is under dispute and none is entitled to retain such possession over the disputed land until further orders. The Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate has ordered the parties not to repeat or continue the nuisance with regard to declaration of title over the disputed lands until further orders and till then the land will be under the custody of the Government as per rules to maintain the law and orders in the village in a situation where struggle was going on between Lambada community people and other Adivasi community people.
3. Aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar And Executive Magistrate, the present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings:
4. a) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Executive Magistrate ought to have seen that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have not shown any documents to show their title and possession over the subject land and high handed behaviour of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 cannot be a ground to invoke the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3
b) The learned Executive Magistrate ought to have seen the existence of the dispute cannot be interfered as there is no iota of evidence to conclude that there are rival claims and those rival claims may lead to disturbance of peace.
c) The learned Executive Magistrate is supposed to issue prior notice as contemplated under Section 145 (1) of the Cr.P.C., and in which event, the petitioners may be in a position to substantiate their possession and enjoyment over the property.
d) The learned Executive Magistrate ought to have seen that the power conferred under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., cannot be used as a ploy to prevent the legal and rightful owner from the enjoyment on possession of the property and more particularly at the instance of respondent Nos.3 to 5, who could not adduce any evidence in favour of their possession and enjoyment.
e) The learned Executive Magistrate ought to have seen that under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., he shall make order in writing, stating that the grounds of being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend the Court in person or pleader on a specified date and time and in 4 the instance case, there is no such exercise by the learned Executive Magistrate.
f) The learned Executive Magistrate failed to see that taking of attaching the subject of dispute can be exercised under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C., and only in the event of making order under Section 145(1) of the Cr.P.C., the attachment/government custody arises.
4. Now the point for determination is:
"Whether Proceedings No.A/178/2018, 22.06.2018 issued by Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Jainoor Mandal, Adilabad District against petitioners under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no grounds for the Executive Magistrate to initiate the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the Executive Magistrate could not complete other proceedings to be taken subsequent to issuance of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure viz., issuance of notice and finally giving a finding as to whether the immovable property, which is in dispute between 5 the parties is required to be given in custody of Revenue officials in order to avoid the confrontation between the parties, which ultimately resulted in prima-facie law and order problem.
6. On perusal of the record, it is clear that though the Executive Magistrate - Revenue Divisional Officer has issued proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 22.06.2018, he could not take further proceedings on account of filing revision before the District/Joint Collector. In addition to that the petitioner has also filed this petition for qushment of the proceedings issued under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and perhaps obtained stay orders.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners himself that whenever he has approached the Executive Magistrate to dispose of the proceedings issued under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Executive Magistrate used to reply that on account of pendency of this criminal petition before this Court, he could not proceed ahead.
8. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances and the submissions, this Court is of the opinion that if suitable directions are given directing the Executive 6 Magistrate to dispose of the proceedings before him as expeditiously as possible, it will meet the ends of justice.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of directing the Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Jainoor Mandal to dispose of the proceedings before him as expeditiously as possible in any case not later than three months by giving notice to all the parties concerned by following the procedure contemplated under law.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 20.07.2022 AS