Allowed

Mr.S.Rajasekaran v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC10 Nov 2014CRL OP/19432/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a criminal original petition and quashed proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated to prevent breach of peace regarding a disputed property. The court held that since the petitioners were already in possession, no apprehension of breach of peace existed, making the criminal proceedings liable to be quashed, leaving the parties to seek civil remedies.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3158/2013/A dated 12.07.2013 initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are quashed. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Mr.S.Rajasekaran Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19432 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶6

1.Mr.S.Rajasekaran
2.S.Elavarasan ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
and Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Chengalpattu
2. Thasildar,
Thiruporur,
Kancheepuram
3. Village Administrative Officer,
Navalur,
Kancheepuram
4. State,rep.by
Inspector of Police,
Thazhambur Police Station,
Kelambakkam Taluk, OMR,
Kanchipuram District ...Respondents

¶7

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in proceedings Na.Ka.No.3158/2013/A of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalp;attu and to quash the preliminary order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the said authority, the first respondent herein.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.A.E.Chelliah,Sr.counsel for M/s.C.Saifullah For Respondents : Mr.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by the first respondent by his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.3158/2013/A, dated 12.07.2013, under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, who are 'B' party in the said proceedings, have come up with this petition. 'A' party in the case are one K.Sundarbabu and Hari Saravanan.

¶12

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶13

3.According to the petitioners they have purchased a property comprised in S.No.45/1, measuring 4263 sq.feet in the year 1999 and they have been in possession of the same. They have constructed a building also on the same and thus, according to the petitioners, they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

¶14

From the counter filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu, it is seen that one Mr.K.Sundarababu made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 17.11.2011 alleging that the said property was in fact purchased only by him for a consideration of Rs.54,000/-, on 13.11.1999, from one Ravi and Durai and in which, the first petitioner herein only negotiated. But the first petitioner thereafter had encroached upon the said property and has constructed a building thereon. The counter further proceeds to say that the Inspector of Police found that there was no offence committed requiring investigation. He further found that the land belongs to the Government, as it is a poramboke land. Therefore, he referred the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer for further action. The counter further proceeds to say that the Revenue Divisional Officer, on verification of the records, found that the said land comprised in S.No.45/1 has been classified as Kuttai Poramboke and the same belongs to the Government. But the Revenue authorities have not taken any steps so far to evict the encroachments. In other words, no proceedings have been initiated to evict the petitioners from the disputed land. The counter further proceeds to say that since there was likelihood of breach of peace, the above said proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated.

¶15

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that absolutely there was no ground to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. He would take me through the records to substantiate his contention that the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the property right from 1999. Thus, according to him, the initiation of proceedings is purely without jurisdiction.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since there was likelihood of breach of peace, the proceedings was initiated.

¶18

7.I have considered the above submissions.

¶19

Even in the counter it is stated that the petitioners were in possession of the property. Whether the land is a poramboke land or not, it is for the authorities to take action. As of now since even in the counter it has been admitted that the petitioners have been in possession of the land, the apprehension of breach of peace does not arise. If Mr.K.Sundrababu has got any rival claim for title or possession, it is for him to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. I only say that there are no grounds made out to proceed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the above proceedings is liable to be quashed.

¶20

In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed. The proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3158/2013/A, dated 12.07.2013, is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that it is open to the parties to work out their civil remedies before the appropriate forum. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

msk

¶24

¶25

The Revenue Divisional Officer, and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu

¶26

The Thasildar, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram

¶27

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

¶28

The Village Administrative Officer, Navalur,

¶29

Kancheepuram

¶30

The Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station, Kelambakkam Taluk, OMR, Kanchipuram District

¶31

2CCs to Mr.C. Saifullah, Advocate SR 53251

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.19432 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 SSI [CO] PSI 18/11/2014

¶33

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

Mr.S.Rajasekaran v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.S.Rajasekaran v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ponnuthaai Vs D.Sabitha IAS

K.Govindan Vs D.Subhashini

Dr.S.Suganthan Vs v.Kanimozhi

R.Rashidhunnishaa Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Nagarajan Vs N.Sujatha

M.Kasinathan Vs P.Murugaiyan