Dismissed

Ramasamy, M/a 65 Years, v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Madras HC13 Jul 2017CRL RC/926/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a Section 145 CrPC order passed by an Executive Magistrate to maintain law and order over disputed land. The Court held the order was sustainable as it aimed to protect law and order pending the decision of a civil suit.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed. No costs awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Ramasamy, M/a 65 Years, Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.07.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.926 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.8729 of 2017

¶6

1.Ramasamy
2.R.Kalaiarasan ...Revision Petitioners/B Party
vs
1.The Sub Divisional Magistrate,
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Perambalur District,
Perambalur. ...Respondent
2.Muthusamy
3.Krishnaraj
4.Ponnusamy
5.Thiagarajan
6.Thirunavukarasu
7.Kannan
8.Solaimuthu
9.Senthil
10.Raja
11.Rajendran ...Respondents/A Party

¶7

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 read with 401(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Na.Ka.A3/0543/2017 order passed by the 1^st Respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer/Executive Magistrate, Perambalur dated 30.05.2017 and set aside the order passed by the 1^st Respondent herein.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil Murugan
For Respondent 1 : Mr.R.Sekar,
Government Advocate
(Crl.Side).

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the proceedings issued by the 1^st Respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer/Executive Magistrate, Perambalur under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, herein after referred to as 'The Code', by Order No.Na.Ka.A3/0543/2017 dated 30.05.2017.

¶12

With regard to the property at Survey No.107/4B2 at Thondamandurai Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District to the extent of 0.10.00 (26 cents land), since there was likelihood of deterioration of law and order in that locality, the first respondent had invoked the provisions of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶13

The first respondent, in fact, by the order dated 25.05.2017, had issued an interim order on both parties, that is the revision petitioner herein who is the 'B' Party, and the private respondents herein, who are the 'A' party, that they shall not indulge in any activities of encroachment, prohibition or any other activity towards the deterioration of law and order in that locality.

¶14

Subsequently, after hearing of both A as well as B parties, the first respondent has passed a final order dated 30.05.2017. In the said final order, the following observation has been made by the first respondent.

¶15

“,e;neh;tpy; jhth ghij gad;ghl;oy; ,Ue;jjh vd;gJ Fwpj;J ,Ujug;g[ thJiu. thj';fs; kw;Wk; fpuhk fzf;Ffis ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;lJ/ M gphptpdh; jug;gpy;“ ” jhf;fy; bra;j vjpUiuapy; nkw;fz;l g[y vz;zpy; (107-482) nkw;F gFjp Xuj;jpy; Xh; tz;og;ghij nkw;go 1. 2 vjph;kDjhuh;fs; kw;Wk; mth;fspd; fpiua Kd;dtUf;F rl;lg;go ghj;jpag;gl;oUe;jJ vd;Wk; gpw;fhyj;jpy; ouhf;lh; nghd;w thfd';fs; te;J bry;y Vjthf ghijia mfykhf;fp mikj;Js;sjhft[k; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjpypUe;J mt;tplj;jpy; ghij ,Ue;jJ vd;gJ Ch;$pjkhfpwJ vd Mizg;gLfpwJ/”

¶16

Aggrieved by the said Order passed by the first respondent, the B Party has preferred this present Revision Petition.

¶17

Heard. Mr.S.Senthil Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel that in order to establish the right of the petitioner (B Party) over the disputed land, the petitioner's group had already approached the Competent Civil Court by filing O.S.No.104 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Perambalur and the said suit is pending adjudication.

¶19

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

¶20

In view of the fact that the petitioner's group has already approached the Competent Civil Court for appropriate relief over the disputed property, the present impugned order passed by the first respondent is merely to protect the law and order, by invoking Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

Therefore, I am of the view that till the trial Court decides the suit in one way or the other in the Civil proceedings initiated by the petitioner, both parties that is, the petitioner as well as the contesting respondent herein, who are the parties to the said Civil Suit also, would abide by the present order passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶22

The present impugned order is only an arrangement to maintain the law and order, invoking power under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and this Order has nothing to do with the decision to be rendered by the Civil Court in the proceedings, which has already been initiated.

¶23

In view of the above, this Court feels that the present Revision need not be entertained, as the impugned order dated 30.05.2017 is sustainable, of Course, subject to the decision to be taken by the Competent Civil Court in the proceedings already initiated by the petitioner.

¶24

With these observations, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CCC) /true copy/

¶26

Sub Asst. Registrar rna

¶27

¶28

1.The Sub Divisional Magistrate, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.G.Ilamurugan,Advocate sr.49532

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.926 of 2017

¶31

rk(co) ss(1/8/2017)

¶32

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

Ramasamy, M/a 65 Years, v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramasamy, M/a 65 Years, v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

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

Shanmugasundaram Vs S.Mani

M/S.Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Unilink Vision Pvt.Ltd

R.Rajesh, Aged 35 Years, Vs Kalaiyarasi, Aged 28 Years

Mrs.P.Meenakumari, Vs the Insepctor of Police

K.VENKAT,52 Yrs, Vs T. Nebaraj Nelson

V.Sundarraj, Age 61 Years Vs Venmathi