Allowed

M.S.Jayaraman v. the District Collector

Madras HC16 Nov 2022CRL RC/481/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed prohibitive order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. imposed during pending civil suits over property where no law and order concerns existed, holding civil courts had primary jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. dated 09.05.2019 is set aside. Criminal revision allowed. Parties free to approach civil court for relief.

M.S.Jayaraman Vs the District Collector — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.RC.No.481 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.RC.No.481 of 2019 and Crl.MP.Nos.6781 & 6782 of 2019

¶7

M.S.Jayaraman . .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus 1.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram 2.The District Revenue Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram 3.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram Division, Villupuram 4.The Thasildar, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District 5.The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Kottakuppam 605 104 6.G.Ravichandran 7.S.Shanmugam 8.S.Mathiazhagan 9.Anbazhagan 10.Sambathkumar 11.Pathmanapan (R9 to R11 impleaded as per order in Crl.MP.No.8640 of 2022 in Crl.RC.No.481 of 2019 dated 06.07.2022) ... Respondents

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶10

1/6

¶11

Crl.RC.No.481 of 2019

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal

¶13

Procedure to set aside the prohibitive order passed against the petitioner by the

¶14

third respondent – the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer on 09.05.2019 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding bearing number Na.Ka.(A-1)1967/2019.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Perumal for Mr.L.Sivakumar

¶16

For Respondents
For R1 to 5 :	Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side)
For R7 & 8 :	Mr.N.R.Elango,
	Senior Counsel
	for Mr.Ashwin Prasanna
For R9 to 11 :	Mr.A.E.Ravichandran

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This criminal revision is filed against the order passed by the third respondent on 09.05.2019 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in Na.Ka.No. (A-1)1967/2019, thereby the petitioner was directed to approach the District Revenue Officer by way of appeal and till then, the petitioner was restrained from interfering with the possession of the subject property by respondents 7 & 8 herein.

¶19

Heard, Mr.P.T.Perumal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for respondents

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶21

Crl.RC.No.481 of 2019

¶22

1 to 5, Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 7 & 8 and Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, the learned counsel for respondents 9 to 11.

¶23

On receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, he was issued CSR.No.121 of 2019 dated 25.03.2019 by the fifth respondent. While pending enquiry, the fifth respondent also referred the same before the third respondent and on receipt of the same, the third respondent initiated proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and issued notice to both the parties. After conclusion of enquiry, the petitioner was directed to file an appeal in respect of cancellation of patta transferred in favour of respondents 7 & 8 herein before the District Revenue Officer. Further, the petitioner was restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property by respondents 7 & 8 and also he was restrained from disturbing the general public.

¶24

It is seen that admittedly there is civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 7 & 8 herein, impleaded respondents 9 to 11 herein. Though the subject property was partitioned by the final decree, patta was transferred in favour of respondents 7 & 8 herein in respect of the share allotted to the petitioner. On the strength of the said patta, respondents 7 & 8 are claiming the property. Therefore, the petitioner filed suit in OS.No.82 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

3/6

¶27

Crl.RC.No.481 of 2019

¶28

Court, Vanur for injunction in respect of the subject property as against respondents 7 & 8 herein and others. However, it was dismissed for default and now the

¶29

petitioner has filed application to restore the same, which is pending. Simultaneously, the eighth respondent also filed suit as against the petitioner in OS.No.182 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Tindivanam for declaration of title by adverse possession in respect of the same subject property.

¶30

When both the suits were pending in respect of the subject property, the third respondent initiated proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., that too admittedly when the property dispute is between two individuals. There was no evidence to show that there was a law and order issue. However, the fifth respondent referred the complaint without even registering FIR for initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. When the civil suits are pending at the time of passing the impuged order, the third respondent has no jurisdiction to pass any order when the civil court seized the issue between two private individuals. Therefore, the order passed by the third respondent cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside.

¶31

Accordingly, the order passed by the third respondent on 09.05.2019 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in Na.Ka.No.(A-1)1967/2019 is set aside and this criminal revision is allowed. It is made clear that the parties are at liberty to

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

4/6

¶34

Crl.RC.No.481 of 2019

¶35

approach the civil court for appropriate relief in the manner known to law. Consequently, conneced miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

16.11.2022

¶37

Speaking/non-speaking Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes lok

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶39

Crl.RC.No.481 of 2019

¶40

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶41

lok

¶42

¶43

1.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram

¶44

2.The District Revenue Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram

¶45

3.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram Division, Villupuram

¶46

4.The Thasildar, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District

¶47

5.The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Kottakuppam 605 104

¶48

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

¶49

Crl.RC.No.481 of 2019

¶50

16.11.2022

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

6/6

M.S.Jayaraman v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Jayaraman v. the District Collector

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.N.Somaskandan, Aged 56 Years Vs P.Esswara Gupta

Sudharsanam, Aged 59 Years, Vs Jayaraman, Aged 63 Years

L.Krishnamoorthy Vs K.Sellamuthu

Senthilkumar Vs State by

C.Chandru, Aged 25 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Selvaraj, M/A.27 Years, Vs the State Represented by