ORDER : G. YETHIRAJULU, J.:— This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Rc. No. B/183/2004, dated 21-07-2004 passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate against Sri. Pothugunta Krishnaiah, Ammineni Ragaiah and Ammineni Syam Prasad alleging that they are in illegal occupation of the land covered by Sy. Nos. 13/1A, 13/1B and 15 of Aadurupalli village and orders were passed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. prohibiting them from entering into the lands until further orders. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners filed a suit covered by O.S. No. 62 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gudur and also filed I.A. No. 143 of 2001 and the said Court granted temporary injunction in their favour against the State on 30-08-2005, therefore, he represented that when civil proceedings are pending, the criminal proceedings cannot be maintained. He also relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in RAM SUMER PURI MAHANT v. STATE OF U.P. AIR 1985 SC 472 , wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: “When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under S. 145 of the Code, would not be justified. The parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil Court, the criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation.” 3. In view of the above decision, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested to quash the order passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate. But the names of the petitioners do not find place in the impugned order and they obtained injunction order from the Civil Court in respect of only one item covered by Sy. No. 13/1A. 4. In view of the above circumstances, the order dated 21-07-2004 passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate is not liable to be quashed. But the names of the petitioners do not find place in the impugned order and they obtained injunction order from the Civil Court in respect of only one item covered by Sy. No. 13/1A. 4. In view of the above circumstances, the order dated 21-07-2004 passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate is not liable to be quashed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to make an application before the Mandal Executive Magistrate along with the Civil Court proceedings and on filing such application, the Mandal Executive Magistrate after perusing those proceedings and after giving opportunity to the petitioners, shall pass appropriate orders according to law. 5. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.