1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 9 to consider the representation dated 28.07.2025 submitted by the petitioners and to initiate necessary proceedings under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNSS”) against the unofficial respondent Nos.10 to 15, for the purpose of maintaining peace and public tranquillity, restraining them from committing any wrongful acts, and for protecting the petitioners‟ life, liberty, and property, pending disposal of the writ petition.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that, based on the representation submitted by the petitioners, both the petitioners and the unofficial respondents were called to the police station, where an oral enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry, it was ascertained that a civil suit in O.S. No.247 of 2023 has been instituted, in which an order of injunction in I.A. No.1477 of 2023 has been passed.

4. It is further submitted that a dispute regarding the ownership of the property is pending adjudication in the said civil suit between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents. Therefore, the 6th respondent could not take any action on the representation submitted by the petitioners.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 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.

                  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 action appears to be mala fide and unsustainable.”

10. 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 as follows:

                  “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 prayed for and obtained, there appears to be no justification for continuing with the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC pending before the SDM.

                  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. State of U.P. [(1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985 SCC (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 Section 482 CrPC.

                  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.””

11. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, thus in a plethora of judgments, has categorically held that the police officer cannot submit report to the learned Executive Magistrate for passing orders under Section 145 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟/Section 164 of „the BNSS.,‟ when there is civil case pending before any Court in respect of the immovable property. Similarly, the Executive Magistrate also cannot invoke the powers under Chapter IX of „the BNSS.,‟ when there is civil case pending before the competent civil Court.

12. In view of the above legal position, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

                  As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.