JUDGMENT/ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'), has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the Order dated 16.12.2021 passed in MC No.217 of 2021 under Section 147 Cr.P.C., by the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present petition, in brief, are as follows : (a) On 07.12.2021, respondent No.2 herein addressed a letter to the Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid Mandal, Nuzvid stating that the Deputy Executive Engineer, Construction Sub-Division-III, Gunadala, Vijayawada lodged a complaint with him on 01.12.2021 alleging that A.P. TRANSCO got approval for erection of 132/33 KV Sub-Station in a land of an extent of Acs.6.07 cents in RS Nos.469/2 and 492/2 situated at Digavalli Village alongwith connected lines for providing 9 hours agriculture power supply in day time to the farmers and A.P. TRANSCO acquired the said land by paying requisite compensation to the land owners and got it registered in its name with rights to use the common approach road of 15 feet from the existing R&B BT Road upto the sub-station. It was further in the said complaint that the petitioner herein, who is the owner of the adjacent land alongwith his son willfully blocked the approached road and obstructed the movements of the men and material into the sub-station site. (b) Based on the said complaint, when respondent No.2 summoned and questioned the petitioner and his son, they stated that the approach road leads to their agricultural fields and the owner, who sold the said land to A.P. TRANSCO has no rights to pass on the said approach road. (c) As there was possibility of arising Law & Order problem at Digavalli Village, respondent No.2 requested the Tahsildar, Nuzvid to take appropriate steps to prevent untoward incidents. (d) On receipt of the said letter, The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid issued a notice dated 07.12.2021 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and petitioner and his sons to appear before him within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice and to submit their objections and documents. (d) On receipt of the said letter, The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid issued a notice dated 07.12.2021 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and petitioner and his sons to appear before him within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice and to submit their objections and documents. (e) Having received the said notice, petitioner herein and his sons filed a counter submitting that their properties are situated in RS Nos.492/3 and 469/3 and they have no landed properties in RS Nos.462/3 and 492/2 of Digavalli Village and they never interfered in the said lands; that respondent No.3 herein and his vendors have been interfering with their possession and enjoyment of their property and trying to lay a new road alongwith the eastern boundary of their land without any right. It is further submitted that as they are unable to resist the highhanded acts of respondent No.3 herein and his vendors, petitioner herein filed a suit in OS No.392 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid against them for permanent injunction and also filed IA No.177 of 2021 therein and the same are pending enquiry. (f) On considering the report submitted by the V.R.O., Digavalli and on perusing the satellite images of A.P. Satellite Application Center and Google Earth Images, having found that, the way has been existing for so many years to the lands which have been under possession and enjoyment of A.P. TRANSCO and the petitioner herein and his sons are trying to obstruct the same, the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid passed an order dated 16.12.2021 in MC No.217 of 2021 directing the petitioner herein and his sons not to obstruct the alleged right of way until they obtain a decree or order of Competent Court adjudging them to be entitled to exclusive possession of the way. The Village Revenue Officer, Digavalli is also directed to remove the obstruction laid by the petitioner herein and his son forthwith. (g) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking quash of the said order. 3. Heard Sri Ch. B.R.P. Sekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/respondent Nos.1 and 2 is in attendance. 4. (g) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking quash of the said order. 3. Heard Sri Ch. B.R.P. Sekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/respondent Nos.1 and 2 is in attendance. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed a suit in OS No.392 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid seeking permanent injunction against respondent No.3 and others and the same is pending adjudication. Learned Counsel would further submit that the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, without considering the documents filed by the petitioner, by relying on the report of V.R.O. and the Google Map, passed in the impugned order, which is contra to Section 147 Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel would further submit that the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to invoke Section 147 Cr.P.C., during pendency of a civil suit before a Competent Court in respect of the same subject property. As such, the said order is not sustainable under law and prays to quash the same. 5. Contrasting the same, learned standing Counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that as per Section 147(2) Cr.P.C., the Mandal Executive Magistrate is not authorized to give any finding over the title of the property, however, in the present case, the learned Magistrate has not given any title to any party over the subject property. It is all about the existence of the approach road to the sites which were purchased by respondent No.3 herein for construction of Electrical Sub-Station. Learned Counsel would further submit after completion of 70% of the construction, the petitioner raised his objection. Learned Counsel would further submit that A.P. TRANSCO has spent Rs.25 crores for the construction of the Sub-Station and the said construction was stalled in the year 2022 because of the stay order passed by this Court. Learned Counsel would finally submit that, as the civil suit is pending adjudication, subject to the result of the said suit, respondent No.3-Authority may be permitted to proceed with the construction work as public interest is involved in the matter. Learned Counsel would finally submit that, as the civil suit is pending adjudication, subject to the result of the said suit, respondent No.3-Authority may be permitted to proceed with the construction work as public interest is involved in the matter. In support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in G. Thiagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad. 7402. Point for Determination 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the order dated 16.12.2021 passed in MC No.217 of 2021 under Section 147 Cr.P.C., by the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid? Determination by the Court 7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a Court of appeal or a Court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 8. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order passed by the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid in MC No.219 of 2021, dated 16.12.2021 contending that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and respondent No.3, without having any right, is trying to lay road through the land of the petitioner and to resist the same, he filed a suit in OS No.392 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid seeking permanent injunction and IA No.177 of 2021 therein seeking temporary injunction against respondent No.3 and their men. It is further contended that, while the said suit is pending before the Competent Civil Court, the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate has no authority to pass the impugned order. 9. It is further contended that, while the said suit is pending before the Competent Civil Court, the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate has no authority to pass the impugned order. 9. With regard to the said contention, a bare perusal of the material on record would clearly show that the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid has passed the impugned order by relying on the report of the V.R.O., Digavalli and the Satellite images of A.P. Satellite Application Centre, and Google Ear Images which show that the said way is in existence since 10 years and the same was not recently created as alleged by the petitioner and his men. In his report dated 13.12.2021, the V.R.O., Digavalli, on enquiry, clearly stated that the said 15 feet way is the only way for ingress and egress from the Southern side R&B road to the lands situated in Sy.Nos.469 and 492 and the same has been in existence since 35 years. The said fact was also buttressed by the Villagers' Panchanama and the statement of the land owners, who sold the land to respondent No.3 herein. 10. Admittedly, the suit filed by the petitioner is pending adjudication and there is no dispute over the title of the petitioner over his property as he purchased his property under four registered sale deeds from the original owners. The copy of the impugned order would clearly disclose that the petitioner and his sons are prevented from causing any obstruction to the right of way of respondent No.3 to their lands until the petitioner obtains a decree or order from the Competent Court adjudging them to be entitled to exclusive possession of the said way. As such, the impugned order which was passed during the pendency of the civil suit, is not bad under law, since, no title of the parties has been decided therein. The contention of the petitioner that no notice has been issued to him before passing the impugned order, is not tenable in view of the copy of the notice dated 07.12.2021 issued to both parties by the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid under Section 147(1) Cr.P.C. In G. Thiagarajan's case (supra), at Para No.5, the High Court of Madras held as follows : "5. On hearing the learned Counsel on either side, this Court holds that because one of the party approached the Civil Court, it does not mean the Executive Magistrate do not have power under Section 147 of Cr.P.C., to decide the title and responsible for maintenance of public peace and order and to ensure he can exercise the power under Section 147 Cr.P.C. As far as the facts of the case in hand, the parties are supposed to appear before the Executive Magistrate on the date they are summoned and place before him all the records in their favour and it is for the Executive Magistrate to pass appropriate order which will ensure public peace and order. It is made clear that while passing the order he shall not dwell upon the title dispute and decide about the title". (Emphasis supplied) 11. A juxtaposing perusal of the above judgment and the impugned order in the present case would go to show that, the impugned order is not bad under law, as the learned Executive Magistrate has passed the same by giving prior notice and also by considering the written submissions and the documents filed by both parties, which is well within the procedure contemplated under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. 12. Further, the material placed on record would show that the subject way has been in existence for the last several decades and except the said way, there is no other way to reach the lands of respondent No.3, as per the report of the V.R.O. As contended by the learned Counsel for respondent No.3, A.P. TRANSCO has already spent huge amount for laying electrical sub-station, this Court is of the view that, no interference, in the impugned order, is required since public interest is involved in the matter. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, judgment referred to supra and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for petitioner to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not warrant any interference of this Court and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 15. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.