Dismissed¶27

R.Kamaraj v. Rajavadivelan

Madras HC22 Aug 2025CRL OP/22523/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; Crl.O.P.No.22523 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.No.15417 of 2025; R.Kamaraj v. Rajavadivelan and The Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Deputy Collector (Revenue), Karaikal; Justice N. Sathish Kumar; decided 22.08.2025; Section 147 Cr.P.C. proceedings before Sub Divisional Magistrate; Section 397 Cr.P.C. revision; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS Act, 2023; easmentary right; usage of pathway; possession; disturbance; interim/quasi-judicial findings not binding; civil court is proper forum; liberty to file suit; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the petition; petitioner given liberty to file a necessary suit before the civil court to establish his right. ¶27

R.Kamaraj Vs Rajavadivelan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on the petition; petitioner given liberty to file a necessary suit before the civil court to establish his right.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023, challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed under Section 147 Cr.P.C. (as upheld in revision), should succeed. +1 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Revisional Court with regard to the rights of the parties will not have any binding effect; the easmentary right and usage of pathway can be decided only on proper evidence before the civil court and not by way of proceedings under Section 147 Cr.P.C.

¶26

Key takeaways

The findings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not record who was in possession and whether there was any disturbance; rights were therefore decided beyond the scope of proceedings under Section 147 Cr.P.C.ratio¶26
The rights of the parties have to be agitated only before the civil court by adducing proper evidence, and the petitioner is at liberty to file a necessary suit to establish his right.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 in Crl.R.C.No.2 of 2023 of the learned Sessions Judge, Karaikal upholding the order dated 29.04.2023 in M.C.No.522 of 2021 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal District passed under Section 147 Cr.P.C. — Dispute concerned easmentary right and usage of a pathway. Held: such rights can be decided only on proper evidence before the civil court and not by way of proceedings under Section 147 Cr.P.C.; the findings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Revisional Court on the parties' rights will not have any binding effect, since the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not record who was in possession or whether there was any disturbance, and rights were decided beyond the scope of Section 147 proceedings. Rights of the parties are to be agitated only before the civil court by adducing proper evidence. Petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a necessary suit; connected miscellaneous petition closed. (N. Sathish Kumar, J.; decision dated 22.08.2025)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.22523 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 22.08.2025

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.22523 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.No.15417 of 2025

R.Kamaraj

...Petitioner

Vs.

Rajavadivelan

¶11

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Deputy Collector (Revenue), Karaikal ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer:

¶13

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 to call for the entire records relating to the case in Crl.R.C.No.2 of 2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karaikal and set aside the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judde, Karaikal upholding the order dated 29.04.2023 made in M.C.No.522 of 2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal District.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) assisted by Mr.M.Thamizhmani for R2 O R D E R

¶15

Page 1 / 4

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.22523 of 2025

¶18

Challenging the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal passed under Section 147 Cr.P.C., the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,/Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record.

¶20

Having suffered the order under Section 147 Cr.P.C before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal and thereafter, having suffered order under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.,Revisional jurisdiction, before the Sessions Court, Puducherry, once again, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., / Section 528 of BNSS, Act.

¶21

The very issue between parties before the Sub Divisional Magistrate is with regard to the easmentary right and usage of the pathway. However, the petitioner is not in a position to succeed his claim and the learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and dismissed the claim of the petitioner. The entire allegation on both sides is with regard to the usage of pathway and claiming easmentary right.

¶22

In such view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Sub

¶23

Page 2 / 4

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.22523 of 2025

¶26

Divisional Magistrate and the Revisional Court, with regard to the rights of the parties will not have any binding. The right with regard to the easmentary right and usage of pathway can be decided only on proper evidence before the civil court and not by way of proceedings under Section 147 of Cr.P.C., and it is not recorded in the findings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate as to who was in possession and whether there was any disturbance. Therefore beyond the scope of proceedings under Section 147 of Cr.P.C.,, rights have been decided by the Sub Divisional officer.

¶27

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the rights of the parties have to be agitated only before the civil court by adducing proper evidence. The petitioner is at liberty to file necessary suit to establish his right. In the result, the present petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

22.08.2025

¶29

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssd

¶30

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶31

ssd

¶32

Page 3 / 4

¶33

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