Dismissed

Marimuthu, v. Rasu

Madras HC6 Aug 2013CRL RC(MD)/100/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of a complaint regarding alleged trespass and property damage. The Court held that the lower court was correct in dismissing the petition due to lack of evidence regarding possession and damage, while directing parties litigate their property dispute in civil courts.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed. Parties directed to approach appropriate civil forum for relief regarding property dispute.

Marimuthu, Vs Rasu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

Marimuthu

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶4

DATED: 06.08.2013

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY

¶7

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2013

¶8

..Petitioner Vs.

¶9

1.Rasu 2.Muthuraj 3.Mariappan 4.Ayyanar 5.Karuppiah 6.Subbulakshmi 7.Soosaiammal 8.Karuppiah ..Respondents 1 to 8/Accused 9.State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Nathampatty Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ..9^th Respondent/Prosecuting Agency

¶10

Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.1851 of 2012 dated 11.10.2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Srivilliputhur and set aside the order and direct the respondent / Prosecuting Agency to register the First Information Report against the respondent / accused under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506(i) of IPCP and Section 3 of the TNP(PDL) Act.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.John Vincent For Respondent : Mr.V.Ramajegadeesan for R1 to 8 Mr.K.Anbarasan, G.A. For R9

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner has come forward with this application against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sriviliputhur in Cr.M.P.No.1851 of 2012 dated 11.10.2012.

¶14

2.The petitioner has made a complaint under Section 156 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the respondents / accused are attempting trespass into the property of the petitioner and damaging the thatched shed. According to him, he is in possession of the property. Based on the said complaint, a case has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, and 506 (ii) of IPC against A1 to A8. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sriviliputhur, has closed the petition in Cr.M.P.No.1851 of 2012 stating that no documents have been produced to prove the possession of the petitioner and for damaging the property, no photograph has been produced and also for the injury, no medical certificate has been produced. On that basis, the complaint has been dismissed. Against which, the present revision has been filed.

¶15

3.From the perusal of the order I am of the view that the view taken by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sriviliputhur, is correct and no need to interfere. But at the same time, the respondents who the persons are also claiming right over the suit property. Hence, both the parties are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directed to approach appropriate forum for appropriate relief.

¶16

¶17

4.With this observation the Criminal Revision petition has been dismissed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sriviliputhur.

¶21

2.The Inspector of Police, Nathampatty Police Station, Virudhunagar Dist. 3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶22

+1CC to M/s.V.Rama jegadeesan, Advocate in SR.No.39834

¶23

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.100 of 2013 06.08.2013

¶24

nbj PBK 11/09/2013 2P/5C

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Marimuthu, v. Rasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marimuthu, v. Rasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ramakrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Sridhar Vs the Inspector of Police

Sakthi Devi Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Subramanian Vs the Inspector General of

Bharathi Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Union Bank of India, Vs M/S.Vishnu Fabrics Private Ltd.