ORDER : Y. LAKSHMANARAO, J. Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment dated 03.08.2023 in M.C.No.15 of 2023 passed by the learned Mandal Executive Officer-Mandal Tahsildar, Peddamudium Mandal, Peddamudium, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners while reiterating the grounds of revision submits that the impugned orders issued by the Mandal Executive Officer-Mandal Tahsildar, Peddamudium Mandal, Peddamudium are manifestly contrary to law and stand vitiated by material irregularity. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Respondent No.2, in the absence of any demonstrable urgency or threat to public peace, constitutes a clear transgression of settled legal principles governing executive intervention under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ It is further contended that the Respondent No.2 has erroneously passed orders in M.C.No.15/2023, whereby both the A and B parties have been restrained from entering the subject land. Such a direction, issued without due consideration of the subsisting civil proceedings, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Respondent No.2 failed to appreciate that the dispute pertaining to the subject property is already seized by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.219/2022, pending adjudication before the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu. In light of the said proceedings, the invocation of powers under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ by the learned Executive Magistrate is impermissible and amounts to judicial impropriety. It is a settled proposition of law that once a dispute concerning immovable property is sub judice before a competent civil forum, the Executive Magistrate is precluded from exercising jurisdiction under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Any parallel adjudication by the executive authority not only undermines the authority of the Civil Court but also violates the doctrine of separation of powers. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondents have failed to place on record any material evidence indicating the existence of a law and order situation warranting immediate executive intervention. The suppression of the pendency of O.S.No.219/2022 before the Civil Court further renders the impugned proceedings legally untenable and procedurally defective. 4. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondents have failed to place on record any material evidence indicating the existence of a law and order situation warranting immediate executive intervention. The suppression of the pendency of O.S.No.219/2022 before the Civil Court further renders the impugned proceedings legally untenable and procedurally defective. 4. In view of the foregoing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the Respondent No.2, during the pendency of the civil dispute, amount to an abuse of the process of law and are liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and to uphold the primacy of civil adjudication in property disputes. 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the Mandal Executive Officer-cum-Tahsildar acted within the bounds of law and procedural propriety while invoking Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ She asserts that the impugned order was passed after a careful evaluation of witness testimonies, which revealed a palpable risk to public peace arising from the property dispute. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the preventive measure, restraining both parties from entering the disputed land, was a neutral and necessary step to avert escalation and preserve public order. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argues that the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate any procedural impropriety, misapplication of law, or miscarriage of justice warranting interference by the revisional court and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the invocation of Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ by the learned Mandal Executive Officer-cum-Mandal Tahsildar, Peddamudium Mandal, Peddamudium, YSR Kadapa District was legally sustainable despite the pendency of a civil suit concerning the same property?” 8. This Court on 07.10.2023 for granting stay of all further proceedings dated 03.08.2023 in M.C.No.15/2023 on the file of the Mandal Executive Officer-cum-Tahsildar, Peddamudium observes that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties herein in O.S.No.219/2022 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu. It was observed that in those circumstances initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ would amount to multiplication of proceedings. 9. It was observed that in those circumstances initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ would amount to multiplication of proceedings. 9. The suit in O.S.No.219/2022 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jammalamadugu was instituted by Respondent Nos.3 & 4 i.e., much before filing of M.C.No.15/2023 and an order was passed therein. The parties have to work out their civil remedies before the competent Civil Court. The Petitioners herein were shown as defendants in the above- mentioned Suit. The learned Mandal Executive Magistrate instead of allowing the Petitioners to work out their civil remedies before the competent Civil Court, entertained the filing of present Case. 10. The Petitioners instead of filing a suitable written statement to the plaint filed by the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 before the learned competent Civil Court had approached the police. The police referred the matter to the Mandal Executive Magistrate, who was not supposed to constrain to pass an order directing both the parties not to enter the disputed land until further orders. The suit was instituted for the relief of grant of permanent injunction, restraining the Petitioners herein to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment from the suit schedule property. 11. A learned Single Judge of this Court in A. Pullamma v. State of A.P., 2020 SCC OnLine AP 5088 at paragraph No.11 directed the parties therein to approach the Civil Court for their rights in respect of the disputed property by setting aside the order passed by the Mandal Executive Officer therein. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., (1985) 1 SCC 427 observed that when a civil litigation is pending for the property about the possession, there was no justification in initiating parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ on the principle that decree of the civil court is binding on the Criminal Court. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey , (2000) 4 SCC 440 at paragraph No.14 observed that parallel proceedings under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ should not continue when the parties are in a position to approach the Civil Court for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of the dispute. 14. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey , (2000) 4 SCC 440 at paragraph No.14 observed that parallel proceedings under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ should not continue when the parties are in a position to approach the Civil Court for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of the dispute. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amresh Tiwari supra at paragraph No.14 further clarified that in every case where Civil Suit is filed, Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ would never lie. It was further held that it was only in cases where Civil Suit was for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned could be applied for and granted by the civil court that proceedings under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ should not be allowed to continue. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (2019) 11 SCC 706 at paragraph Nos.24 to 27 held as under: “24. We do not see how it can be contended by any stretch of imagination that the appellants have misappropriated the amount or dishonestly used the amount contrary to any law or contract. In any case, we find that the dispute has the contours of a dispute of civil nature and does not constitute acriminal offence. 25. Having given our anxious consideration, we are of the view that assuming that there is a security deposit of rupees one crore and that he has misappropriated the dispute between the two parties can only be a civil dispute. 26. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , this Court observedasfollows: (SCCp. 749, para13) “13. … Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecutionshouldbedeprecatedanddiscouraged.” The Court noticed a growing trend in business circles to convert purely civil disputeinto criminal cases. 27. We find it strange that the complainant has not made any attempt for the recovery of the money of rupees one crore except by filing this criminal complaint.This actionappearstobemala fideandunsustainable.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jhummamal v. State of M.P., (1988) 4 SCC 452 at paragraph No.5 held as under: “5. 27. We find it strange that the complainant has not made any attempt for the recovery of the money of rupees one crore except by filing this criminal complaint.This actionappearstobemala fideandunsustainable.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jhummamal v. State of M.P., (1988) 4 SCC 452 at paragraph No.5 held as under: “5. It may also be relevant to state that the respondent challenged the final order under Section 145(6) of the Criminal Penal Code in a revision before the Sessions Judge. On 27-9-1985, that revision was dismissed. After becoming unsuccessful in the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC and also before civil court in the suit for injunction, the respondent moved the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC. The High Court accepted the petition and quashed the proceedings by following the judgment of this Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. [ (1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 98] The operative portion of the High Court order is asfollows: “In view of the fact that civil proceedings in respect of the disputed premises is pending before the competent civil court, where interim reliefs have been prayedfor and obtained, there appearstobe no justification for continuingwith theproceedingsunder Section145CrPC pending beforetheSDM. Shri Tiwari learned counsel submitted that in case the plaintiff's suit is either withdrawn or dismissed, he would be left with no remedy. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Sumer Puri v.Stateof U.P.[(1985) 1SCC 427: 1985SCC (Cri)98] Section 145 is intended to provide a special remedy for the prevention of breach of peace arising out of a dispute relating to immovable property. Its primary object is to maintain the public peace and not to decide disputes between the contending parties or adjudicate upon the rights of-the parties to possession. Now, that the civil court is seized of the matter, it is desirable that such parallel proceedings in respect of the same subject matter and dispute should not be allowed to continue in the criminal courts as it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court which is one of the grounds for invoking Section482 CrPC. For the foregoing reasons, this petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. For the foregoing reasons, this petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The proceedings under Section 145 CrPC pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ujjain, along with the orders passed therein is, therefore, quashed.”” 17. Admittedly, the property in MC.No.15/2023 on the file of the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate and schedule property in OS.No.219/2022 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jammalamadugu are one and the same. The Petitioners approached the Station House Officer of Peddamudium Police that Respondent Nos.3 & 4 were interfering in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Indeed, the Petitioners were not supposed to approach the police when there is a Civil Suit pending in respect of the schedule property and a similar relief is sought for in the civil suit. 18. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant and Amresh Tiwari supra, there was no justification for the Petitioners to approach the police and learned Executive Magistrate and the learned Executive Magistrate of Peddamudium was not supposed to pass an order dated 03.08.2023. The learned Executive Magistrate ought to have relegated both the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate remedies. 19. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, setting aside the order passed on 03.08.2023 in M.C.No.15/2023 by the Mandal Executive Officer-cum-Tahsildar, Peddamudium Mandal, Peddamudium. The Petitioners are directed to approach the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Peddamudium for any grievance in the pending Suit. 20. Therefore, parallel proceedings cannot be maintained, and the learned Executive Magistrate was not authorized to, rather empowered to pass any order much less an impugned order, when there is a Civil Suit pending in between the parties before a competent Civil Court. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 03.08.2023 in MC.No.15/2023 passed by the learned Mandal Executive Officer-cum-Tahsildar, Peddamudium Mandal, Peddamudium. The parties are directed to pursue their legal remedies in OS No.219/2022 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jammalamadugu. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.