( 1 ) ALL these criminal petitions are in relation to the same incident. ( 2 ) THE Officials of the Andhra Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation, nizamabad Depot involved in forcibly taking away the S. T. D. Booth of the complainant are the petitions in these criminal petitions. ( 3 ) SRI V. T. M. Prasad, the learned counsel representing the petitioners in all these criminal petitions would maintain that the complainant in fact, approached the Junior civil Judge, Nizamabad by filing OS. No. 10 of 2000 praying for injunction and I. A. No. 800 of 2000 praying for temporary injunction was in fact, dismissed and the licence period also had expired even by 2000 and hence, these petitioners-officials of A. P. S. R. T. C. are at liberty to remove the S. T. D. booths. Since they acted bonafidely, the prosecution need not be further proceeded with. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned Additional public Prosecutor Sri Dhanunjay would maintain that it may be a fact that in a civil dispute, prima facie, the complainant was un-successful, but, however, the petitioners- a. P. S. R. T. C. , officials are not expected to take law into their own hands. Even otherwise, in the light of the directions issued by the additional Sessions Court, the matter may have to be further proceeded with. ( 5 ) HEARD both the learned counsel, ( 6 ) THESE criminal petitions are filed praying for the quashing of the proceedings in c. C. No. 35 of 2002 on the file of the Additional judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad. Respondent No. 1-is a licence holder for a period of four years from 1996 to 2000 for running S. T. D. booth in the premises of a. P. S. R. T. C. Bus stand, Nizamabad, at an area of 6 x 6 . It is stated that the said complainant approached the Junior Civil judge, Nizamabad by filing O. S. No. 10 of 2000 for injunction and also filed an application i. A. No. 800 of 2000 praying for temporary injunction and the said application was dismissed. The licence period also had expired by 2000 and hence, the petitioners in all these criminal petitions-the officials of a. P. S. R. T. C. , had taken a stand that they are at liberty to remove the S. T. D. booth. The licence period also had expired by 2000 and hence, the petitioners in all these criminal petitions-the officials of a. P. S. R. T. C. , had taken a stand that they are at liberty to remove the S. T. D. booth. It is also stated that the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Nizamabad, dismissed the complaint by order, dated 27-6-2000 in Criminal m. P. No. 2580 of 2000 by holding that the matter was already seized by a competent civil Court, giving liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court. Aggrieved by the same, it is stated that Criminal R. P. No. 18 of 2000 was filed before the Additional Sessions judge, Nizamabad and the Additional sessions Judge, Nizamabad allowed the criminal R. P. No. 18 of 2000 by directing the additional J. F. C. M. , to record the statements of remaining witnesses and to pass appropriate orders, but the learned Magistrate basing on the sworn statement of the complainant, which had been already recorded and without recording the statements of other witnesses as directed by the Additional Sessions Judge, had made the orders. It may be appropriate to have a look at the operative portion of the order in crl. R. P. No. 18 of 2000, which is as hereunder:"in the result, revision petition is allowed and the learned Additional JFCM, nizamabad is directed to record statements of remaining witnesses and to pass appropriate orders by giving sufficient opportunity to the revision petitioner". ( 7 ) IT is needless to say that the learned jfcm, Nizamabad is bound to obey the directions, which had been issued in the criminal R. P. No. 18 of 2000 by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Without complying with the said directions, the learned Magistrate it appears, had further proceeded with the matter. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no justification in doing so. It is needless to say that the learned Magistrate is at liberty to further record the statements as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge referred to supra and pass appropriate orders. The criminal petitions are accordingly disposed of with the above directions.