K V SUBRAMANYAM v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3874 OF 2026 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.3 to 5, interfering with civil disputes and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners and his family members with regard to their Property admeasuring total extent of Ac.13.60 Cents situated at Survey Nos.96/1,2,3,5,6,7,98/1,2,6,7,11,10,99/12,13,6,19, 100/1,2,6,7,12, 101/1, 101/2,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14A and 102/3 of No.32-Nesanur Village Accounts, Puttur Mandal, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh and trying to dispossess the Petitioner and his family members from the subject properties by initiating Proceedings under Sec.164 BNSS (Sec.145 of Cr.P.C.) when the matter is seized before civil courts and also ignoring the Decree and Judgment dt.30.07.2024 passed in O.S.No.94 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Puttur and without considering the pendency of A.S.No.68 of 2024 on the file of III Addl. District Judge at Tirupati and pendency of O.S.No.48 of 2025 on the file of Principle Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Puttur, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to 5 not to initiate any Proceedings under Sec.164 BNSS (Sec.145 of Cr.P.C.) nor interfere with civil disputes, including interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner and his family members with regard to subject properties in any manner, in the interest of justice and to pass…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3. Sri Devalaraju Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are interfering in civil disputes relating to peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and his family members with regard to their property admeasuring an extent of Ac.13.60 cents situated at Survey Nos. 96/1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 98/1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 10, 99/12, 13, 6, 19, 100/1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 101/1, 101/2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14A and 102/3 of No. 4 32-Nesanur Village Accounts, Puttur Mandal, Tirupati District, and are trying to dispossess the Petitioner and his family members from the subject property by initiating Proceedings under Section 164 BNSS (corresponding to Section 145 of Cr.P.C.).

4. He would further submit that, though the matter is already pending before the Civil Courts, the authorities have ignored the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2024 in O.S.No.94 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. They have also failed to consider the pending A.S.No.68 of 2024 before the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and O.S.No.48 of 2025 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puttur.

5. Sri P.Ajay Babu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioner and third parties.

6. A learned Single Judge of this Court in A. Pullamma v. State of A.P.,1 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.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., 2 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. 12020 SCC OnLine AP 5088 2(1985) 1 SCC 427 5

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey3, 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.

9. 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.

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi)4, 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 a criminal 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 observed as follows : (SCC p. 749, para 13) “13. … Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.” The Court noticed a growing trend in business circles to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases.