ORDER : This writ petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Ref. No.K/58/2021 dated 28.01.2021 issued by respondent No.1 - the Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karimnagar, under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) in respect of the premises bearing House No.10-4-136/1 situated at Bank Colony, Karimnagar and House No.2-6-30 (pesticides shop) Market Road, Karimnagar, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to handover keys and possession of those properties which include pesticide shop under the name and style of Sai Thirumala Pesticides, to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his son Mr. Satyanarayana Reddy is owner of the subject properties. Mr. Satyanarayana Reddy along with his wife and daughter have left their house on pilgrimage in their car. They did not return home. They were found dead on 17.02.2020 as the car in which they were travelling fell in Kakatiya Canal near Alugunur Village of Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District. The bodies of Mr. Satyanarayana Reddy and his wife and daughter were recovered. A case in Crime No.35 of 2020 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by respondent No.4 - the Circle Inspector of Police, Thimmapur Police Station, Thimmapur, Karimnagar District. The Station House Officer searched the pesticides shop viz., Sai Thirumala Pesticides of the petitioner’s son and in the course of investigation, seized the shop. Respondent No.4 found a note in the pesticides shop alleged to have written by the deceased himself expressing that he intends to do away with his life and also to donate his properties to a trust or temple. Final report was said to have filed and the case was closed. (a) The police have seized the subject properties belonging to the deceased. On enquiry of the petitioner, it was learnt that respondent No.4 has locked both the subject premises and kept the keys with him. The petitioner approached respondent No.4 on 13.06.2020 and requested him to handover the keys of the subject properties i.e., residential premises and pesticides shop stating that he being the father of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana, is his legal heir, as such, he is legally entitled to take possession of the subject properties belonging to the deceased. The petitioner approached respondent No.4 on 13.06.2020 and requested him to handover the keys of the subject properties i.e., residential premises and pesticides shop stating that he being the father of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana, is his legal heir, as such, he is legally entitled to take possession of the subject properties belonging to the deceased. It is alleged that instead of handing-over the keys, respondent No.4 has addressed a letter dated 26.06.2020 to respondent No.2 - the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Karimnagar Urban to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. based on the complaint dated 25.06.2020 given by respondent No.5 - Mr. Dasari Venka Ramana Reddy, Advocate, the elder brother of the deceased Smt. Radha (wife of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy). (b) On knowing that proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. are initiated at the instance of respondent No.5, the petitioner filed an application dated 08.09.2020 to the Public Information Officer, Thimmapur Police Station, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and he was informed by the reply dated 09.09.2020 that the office of respondent No.4 has requisitioned the Tahsildar, Karimnagar Urban for initiating the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted another application dated 20.10.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, through his Advocate to respondent No.1 - the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, to know the complete details of the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and by the reply dated 17.11.2020 he was informed that no proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. are initiated from 01.01.2020 to 30.09.2020. As there is contradictory information, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 02.12.2020 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 and also to respondent No.1 requesting them to handover keys of the subject properties since there is large quantity of pesticides, seeds and medicinal insecticides which have expiry date and all this seeds and insecticides have to be immediately disposed of by returning them to the company, otherwise the material would be spoiled resulting in huge financial loss. (c) The petitioner has filed W.P. No.248 of 2021 challenging seizure of the subject properties and this Court by the order dated 08.01.2021 directed respondent No.4 to handover keys of the premises to the petitioner. However, respondent No.4 deliberately handed-over keys of the subject properties to respondent No.2 on 01.02.2021. 3. (c) The petitioner has filed W.P. No.248 of 2021 challenging seizure of the subject properties and this Court by the order dated 08.01.2021 directed respondent No.4 to handover keys of the premises to the petitioner. However, respondent No.4 deliberately handed-over keys of the subject properties to respondent No.2 on 01.02.2021. 3. In the counter filed by respondent No.5, it is submitted that the police during the course of investigation in the crime, searched the pesticide shop of the deceased son of the petitioner and found a note written by the deceased in his diary. To find genuineness of such note, it was referred to the handwriting expert who gave his opinion vide File No.Doc/51/2020 dated 19.03.2020 stating that the writing in the note is of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy. Further, actually, the deceased committed suicide along with his wife and daughter and no foul play is suspected with the death of the deceased Mr. Satyanrayana Reddy and his family. Accordingly final report was filed referring the case as “action dropped.” In the suicide note, the deceased mentioned that his properties may be transferred to a Trust or Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. (a) Respondent No.5 brought to the notice of the police that the property exclusively belongs to his sister and to avoid law and order problem, requested respondent No.2, who in turn appeared to have submitted report to respondent No.1, who having taken gravity of the situation into consideration, passed orders promulgating the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. (b) It is stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot adjudicate rights over the subject properties between the petitioner and respondent No.5. However, by taking into consideration the contents of the letter addressed by respondent Nos.2 and 4, respondent No.1 has rightly passed the impugned order dated 28.01.2021 promulgating the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. (c) It is stated that the petitioner and his daughter Smt. Panyala Vijayalaxmi (younger sister of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy) have filed a suit in O.S. No.6 of 2020 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar to declare them as legal heirs of the deceased Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy) have filed a suit in O.S. No.6 of 2020 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar to declare them as legal heirs of the deceased Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy. (d) It is further contended that respondent No.1 by taking the rival claims made by the petitioner and respondent No.5 into consideration, in order to avoid law and order problem, basing on the reports of respondent Nos.2 and 4, has rightly recommended to initiate the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. 4. Heard Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3; learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.4; and Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5, and perused the material on record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The Revenue Divisional Officer does not have any role to play and it is only the Executive Magistrate who is competent to take the report submitted by the police and proceed further. There is no material before respondent No.4 to show that there is likelihood of causing breach of peace in respect of the subject properties. That except the letters addressed by respondent Nos.2 and 4, there is no other material before the police to show that attempts were being made by the family members of the deceased and his in-laws to overpower each other. Civil Litigation is pending over the subject properties and respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to entertain the report submitted by respondent No.4 unless he is satisfied by recording reasons to proceed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has submitted that admittedly O.S. No.6 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner and his daughter for declaring them as legal heir of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy. On the other hand, respondent No.5 claims that the subject properties exclusively belonging to his deceased sister Smt. Dasari alias Nareddy Radha, and thus, as there are two parties making rival claims over the subject properties, it was found by respondent No.4 that there is likelihood of breach of peace and has submitted report to respondent No.1. In consequence thereof, the impugned proceedings were issued, as such, there is no illegality in issuance of the same. In consequence thereof, the impugned proceedings were issued, as such, there is no illegality in issuance of the same. 7. Section 145 of Cr.P.C. reads as under : 145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace. (1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) The Magistrate shall then, without, reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under subsection (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1). (5) Nothing in this section' shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under subsection (1) shall be final. (6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated as being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.” 8. The impugned order dated 28.01.2021 was passed by respondent No.1 pursuant to the report dated 26.06.2020 submitted by respondent No.4. The report dated 26.06.2020 of respondent No.4 is as under : “During the course of investigation, searched the house and pesticide shop of the deceased to ascertain the reason behind the deaths of the D-1 to D-3. ON search, death note written in a diary was found in the pesticide shop at Karimnagar town, in order to make comparison the hand written of the deceased standard writings collected and forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad. After examination the hand writings written in the death note together with the standard signatures and writings have been tallied. On 13-06-2020, the father of the deceased No.1 namely Nareddy Narsimha Reddy lodged a complaint that, being legal heirs of the Deceased No.1 he requested to hand over the locked keys of the house located Bank Colony Karimnagar bearing H.No.10-4-136/1 and pesticide shop at Market road Karimnagar bearing door No.2-6-30. Further the complainant Dasari Venkat Ramana Reddy who is elder brother of the Deceased No.2 also claimed that, they are legal heirs of D-2 and requested for the same. The properties of the D-1 became question as the deceased No.1 mentioned in his death he has earned the property on his own and they same shall be kept under trust or the properties may be handed over to Thirumala Thirupathi Devasthanam. But the father of the D-1 and elder brother of the D-2 is claiming the properties. The keys of the house with the complainant are being collected, both the keys of the house and pesticide shop are sent here with for disposal. There is every likely hood of both the parties making attempt to overpower each other and to occupy the properties to defeat the claim of others. The keys of the house with the complainant are being collected, both the keys of the house and pesticide shop are sent here with for disposal. There is every likely hood of both the parties making attempt to overpower each other and to occupy the properties to defeat the claim of others. In that event there is every likely hood of breach of peace and also to create law and order problem.” 9. Breach of peace has been defined as a violation of public order, more particularly, an attack on a person in public or provocation to attack or any act likely to cause disturbance of traffic or peaceful enjoyment of public places. 10. In the impugned order dated 28.01.2021, it was pointed out by respondent No.1 that a suicide note was found in the pesticide shop run by the deceased Mr. Nareddy Saatyanarayana Reddy; the petitioner has lodged a complaint for release of the keys and claimed that himself along with his daughter are legal heirs of the deceased; that as mentioned in the death statement (suicide note), the deceased has earned the subject properties on his own and the same shall be given to a trust or may be handedover to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam which is being opposed by the petitioner and respondent No.5. Thus, it was opined that there is likelihood of both parties making attempt to overpower each other and occupy the properties by defeating the claim of other and thus, there is likelihood of breach of peace. On the request of respondent No.4 to take action under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and keys of the subject premises being handed over, it is opined by respondent No.1 that being satisfied with the facts and circumstances, without referring to merits of the claim of both the parties, he has promulgated the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and took possession of the subject properties. 11. From the impugned order dated 28.01.2021, what can be gathered is that there is a dispute regarding title over the property of the deceased. Though there is a claim of possession by respondent No.5, it cannot be said that there is a dispute as such regarding possession over the property. 11. From the impugned order dated 28.01.2021, what can be gathered is that there is a dispute regarding title over the property of the deceased. Though there is a claim of possession by respondent No.5, it cannot be said that there is a dispute as such regarding possession over the property. Respondent No.1 seems to be of the opinion that the deceased left a suicide note / death note stating that his properties shall be given to Trust or may be handed over to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. Further, there is a claim made by the petitioner and respondent No.5 for handing over keys of the subject premises and purportedly came to the conclusion that there is a possibility of both parties trying to overpower each other and there is likelihood of breach of peace. As can be seen from the impugned order, the dispute is regarding title and not regarding possession. Title disputes cannot be decided within the purview of Section 145 of Cr.P.C. 12. In Bhinka v. Charan Singh, AIR 1959 SC 960 , a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “13. Can it be said that the appellants had taken possession in accordance with the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? The short answer is that Section 145 of the said Code does not confer on a Magistrate any power to make an order directing the delivery of possession to a person who is not in possession on the date of the preliminary order made by him under Section 145(1) of the Code. “Under Section 145(1) of the Code, his jurisdiction is confined only to decide whether any and which of the parties was on the date of the preliminary order in possession of the land in dispute. The order only declares the actual possession of a party on a specified date and does not purport to give possession or authorise any party to take possession. Even in the case of any party who has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date of the preliminary order, the Magistrate is only authroised to treat that party who is dispossessed as if he had been in possession on such date. Even in the case of any party who has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date of the preliminary order, the Magistrate is only authroised to treat that party who is dispossessed as if he had been in possession on such date. If that be the legal position, the appellants could not have taken possession of the disputed lands by virtue of an order made under the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were either in possession or not in possession of the said lands on the specified date, and, if they were not in possession on that date, their subsequent taking possession thereof could not have been under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. This leads us to the consideration of the legal effect of the order made by the Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 145(6) of the Code, a Magistrate is authorized to issue an order declaring a party to be entitled to possession of a land until evicted therefrom in due course of law. The Magistrate does not purport to decide a party’s title or right to possession of the land but expressly reserves that question to be decided in due course of law. The foundation of his jurisdiction is on apprehension of the breach of the peace, and, with that object, he makes a temporary order irrespective of the rights of the parties, which will have to be agitated and disposed of in the manner provided by law. The life of the said order is co-terminous with the passing of a decree by a civil court and the moment a civil court makes an order of eviction, it displaces the order of the criminal court. The privy Council in Dinomoni Chowdhrani v. Brojo Mohini Chowdhrani tersely states the effect of orders under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thus: “These orders are merely police orders made to prevent breaches of the peace. They decide no question of title … ...” In R.H. Bhutani v. Miss Mani J. Desai, AIR 1968 SC 1444 , a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “8. They decide no question of title … ...” In R.H. Bhutani v. Miss Mani J. Desai, AIR 1968 SC 1444 , a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “8. The object of Section 145, no doubt, is to prevent breach of peace and for that end to provide a speedy remedy by bringing the parties before the court and ascertaining who of them was in actual possession and to maintain status quo until their rights are determined a competent court. The section requires that the Magistrate must be satisfied before initiating proceedings that a dispute, regarding an immoveable property exists and that such dispute is likely to cause breach of peace. But once he is satisfied of these two conditions, the section requires him to pass a preliminary order under sub-section (1) and thereafter to make an enquiry under sub-section (4) and pass a final order under sub-section (6). It is not necessary that at the time of passing the final order the apprehension of breach of peace should continue or exist. The enquiry under Section 145 is limited to the question as to who was in actual possession of the date of the preliminary order irrespective of the rights of the parties. Under the second proviso, the party who is found to have been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next preceding the date of the preliminary order may for the purpose of enquiry be deemed to have been in possession on the date of that order. The opposite party may of course prove that dispossession took place more than two months next preceding the date of that order and in that case the Magistrate would have to cancel his preliminary order. On the other hand, if he is satisfied that dispossession was both forcible and wrongful and took place within the prescribed period, the party dispossessed would be deemed to be in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order and the Magistrate would then proceed to make his final order directing the dispossessor to restore possession and prohibit him from interfering with that possession until the applicant is evicted in due course of law. This is broadly the scheme of Section 145.” 13. This is broadly the scheme of Section 145.” 13. From the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have to be promulgated only where there is a dispute regarding possession over the property and there is likelihood of breach of peace. The dispute of title between the two parties who are family members of the deceased or pendency of civil dispute cannot be a ground to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The phrase “likelihood of breach of peace” under the aforesaid provision would indicate that there has to be some circumstances whereby the Executive Magistrate forms an opinion that there is dispute regarding possession of property and on account of such dispute, there is disturbance to the public order or tranquility. Such an opinion cannot be formed on a mere hyper-technical approach. There has to be actual element of likelihood of breach of peace. Further, it was never the case of respondent No.5 that he was in prior possession of the subject properties. The Executive Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. can only decide as to who was in actual possession of the property and by promulgation of order, has to either protect or restore possession of property to the party concerned as required under Section 145(6)(a) of Cr.P.C. This Court holds the two conditions i.e., dispute regarding possession and likelihood of breach of peace are not existing in the instant case. Even by legal fiction, the respondent No.5 cannot be deemed to be in possession of the subject property. In the instant case, rival claims have been made by the petitioner and respondent No.5 over the properties of the deceased. It is not the case of respondent No.5 that deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy was not owner of the subject properties. The petitioner is the father and legal heir of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy. Respondent No.5 is the brother of the deceased Smt. Dasari alias Nareddy Radha (wife of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy). Respondent No.5 cannot be treated as a legal heir of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. 14. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy. Respondent No.5 is the brother of the deceased Smt. Dasari alias Nareddy Radha (wife of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy). Respondent No.5 cannot be treated as a legal heir of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. 14. In the light of the above observations, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.4 should have handed-over keys of the subject properties to the petitioner, who is the father and legal heir of the deceased Mr. Nareddy Satyanarayana Reddy. Instead, respondent No.4 has exceeded his jurisdiction and overstepped his limits by submitting a report to respondent No.1 for promulgating the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. 15. Therefore, this Court holds that no ground is made out by respondent No.4 for initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to forthwith handover the keys of the subject properties i.e., House No.10-4-136/1 situated at Bank Colony, Karimnagar and H.No.2-6-30 (Sai Thirumala Pesticides Shop) Market Road, Karimnagar, to the petitioner immediately on receipt of a copy of this order under due acknowledgement and submit a report to that effect by way of a memo. As the impugned proceedings have been set aside on prima facie being satisfied that there is no dispute regarding possession and the dispute causing likelihood of breach of peace, this Court considers it not necessary to deal with other points argued by the learned counsel on either side and the decisions relied on by them. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. It is needless to observe that further rights of the parties shall be subject to outcome of the pending suit in O.S. No.6 of 2020 which shall be decided by the trial Court uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.