AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.C/201/2026 dated 28.04.2026 exercising the powers conferred under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS').
Heard Mr. G.Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V.Jithender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. V.Ramulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that based on the report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thangallapalli Police Station, and report of the Tahsildar, Thangallapalli, respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District, while exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of Section 164 of the BNSS passed the impugned order prohibiting the petitioners from entering into the property admeasuring Ac.3-00 guntas in Sy.No.1170/2 of Thadur Village, Thangallapalli Mandal, (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property'), without giving notice and opportunity to the petitioners, and the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 164 of the BNSS.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.3 is owner of the subject property and when the petitioners were trying to interfere with the subject property, respondent No.3 had approached the competent Civil Court and filed a suit in O.S.No.325 of 2024, wherein the ad interim injunction was granted in I.A.No. 457 of 2024 restraining the petitioners from interfering with the subject property. At that time, the petitioners lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thangallapalli and Crime No.6 of 2026 was registered on 02.02.2026. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thangallapalli after conducting investigation submitted detailed report to the Tahsildar, Thangallapalli and in turn Tahsildar, Thangallapalli on 05.03.2026 conducted inspection and submitted report to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has rightly initiated the proceedings exercising the powers conferred under Section 164 of the BNSS and issued the impugned promulgated order. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that before passing the impugned order, respondent No.2 ought to have given notice and opportunity to the petitioners as well as respondent No.3 and without giving an opportunity to the parties he had passed the impugned promulgated order exercising the powers conferred under Section 164 of the BNSS and the same is contrary to law. He further submitted that respondent No.2 prevented respondent No.3 also from entering into the subject property though he is having ad interim injunction in his favour.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that both the parties are claiming rights over the subject property. The record further reveals that respondent No.3 filed a suit in O.S.No.325 of 2024 before the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, wherein the said Court was pleased to grant ad interim injunction in his favour in I.A.No.457 of 2024. Basing on the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police dated 02.02.2026 as well as the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Thangallapalli dated 05.03.2026 and legal opinion given by the Government Pleader, Principal District Court, Siricilla to the Sub-Inspector of Police vide letter dated 27.04.2026, respondent No.2 while exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of Section 164 of the BNSS issued the impugned promulgated order prohibiting both the parties from entering into the subject property. The impugned order reveals that respondent No.2 has not given any notice and opportunity to the petitioners as required under Section 164(1) of the BNSS and the same is gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned promulgated order in Proceedings No.C/201/2026 passed by respondent No.2 dated 28.04.2026. Accordingly, the said order is quashed. However, this order will not preclude respondent No.2 from passing the order afresh, after giving notice and opportunity to the respective parties, in accordance with law.
With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.