Allowed

K.Mannar v. the Sub Divisional Executive

Madras HC8 Mar 2019CRL OP/11017/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a cognitve order passed under Section 107 Cr.P.C. in a pathway dispute because the claimant correctly argued that the case was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. pursuant to an application by the learned Government Advocate.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Miscellaneous Register Case No.4 of 2012 dated 04.10.2012 on the file of the 1st respondent are quashed.

K.Mannar Vs the Sub Divisional Executive — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.03.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.11017 of 2013 and

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

... Petitioner/A Party

¶8

K.Mannar Versus 1.The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶9

2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Arcot Town Police Station,
Arcot, Vellore District. ... RR1 & 2/Complainant
3.Anbalagan
4.Smt.Sarala RR3 & 4/B Party/Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the order in Miscellaneous Register Case No.4 of 2012 dated 04.10.2012 on the file of the 1 st respondent quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : No Appearance

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.Hari Hara Arun Somasankar Government Advocate [Crl. Side]

¶13

For RR1 & 2

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order in Miscellaneous Register Case No.4 of 2012 dated 04.10.2012 on the file of the 1 st respondent and to quash the same.

¶16

2.When the matter is taken up on 28.02.2019, there was no representation for the petitioners. Hence, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption “for dismissal” on 08.03.2019. Even today i.e., on 08.03.2019, there is no

¶17

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

¶18

representation on behalf of the petitioner either in person or by their counsel.

¶19

3.There is a pathway dispute pending between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 & 4. In this regard, the respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.898 of 2012, dated 10.09.2012, as per Section 107 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the 1 st respondent/The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District for further proceedings. On 04.10.2012, the 1 st respondent had passed the order in Miscellaneous Register Case No.4 of 2012, in which the petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 & 4 are arrayed as 'A' and 'B' Party and directed them to submit a bond worth of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for a period of one year with an undertaking to maintain public peace and also directed them to furnish surety bond. Against which the present petition is filed.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] submits that this case has been filed in the year 2012 and the same is pending. The petitioners have created a public nuisance and tranquility, which necessitated filing of the case against 'A' and 'B' Party f or maintaining peace and harmony. It is also fairly submitted by the learned Government Advocate that no other cases of similar nature has been registered against them.

¶21

5.It is seen from the records that the case is of the year 2012 and under Section 107 Cr.P.C., it is a show cause notice for breach of peace or disturbance of Public tranquility, a bond under Section 111 of Cr.P.C and violation of the same order to be made under Section 117 of Cr.P.C. Further as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the case would be barred by limitation.

¶22

6.On considering the facts of the case and the legal bar in further proceeding with this case, the proceedings in Miscellaneous Register Case No.4 of 2012 dated 04.10.2012 on the file of the 1 st respondent is quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/Deputy Registrar

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

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

¶27

vv2

¶28

¶29

1.The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶30

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station, Arcot, Vellore District.

¶31

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.11017 of 2013
nr 26/06/2019

¶33

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

K.Mannar v. the Sub Divisional Executive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mannar v. the Sub Divisional Executive

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

P.Jawahar Vs Mr.Mohammad Abdullah

Balu@Jaganathan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mr.R.Neelamegam Vs M/S.Sevenseas Polymers Pvt.

S.Ganesan Vs K.Thirupathy

V.Israel Vs the Commissioner of Police

P.P.Venugopalan Vs Inspector of Police