Madras High Court
M.Thangamuthu vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/ on 17 December, 2020
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 11.10.2022
Delivered on : 31.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.340 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9053 of 2022
1.M.Thangamuthu
2.P.Krishnamoorthy
3.T.Kayalvizhi
4.T.Kowsalya
5.T.Thangakathiravan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer/
Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Thasildar,
Nilakottai Taluk,
Dindigul District.
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
4.The Inspector of Police,
Batlagundu Police Station,
Dindigul District.
5.N.Vijayakumar
6.S.Naveen Nagendra Sasikumar
7.S.Senthilkumari
8.J.Nithya
9.M.Ganesan
10.G.Sakthivel
11.S.Santhini
12.S.Jeya ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to set aside the order passed by the first
respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Divisional Magistrate in
Na.Ka.1387/2020/A1 dated 17.12.2020.
For Petitioners : Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 to R4
Mr.K.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.D.Selvanayagam for R5 to R8
Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R9 to R12
2/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by the first respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Divisional Magistrate in Na.Ka.No.1387/2020/A1 dated 17.12.2020.
2. The petitioners' case, as evident from the records, in short is as follows: The first petitioner created a registered Trust, namely, M/s.Amutham Foundation, Batlagundu, vide document No.18/2014 dated 09.05.2014. The first petitioner is the Founder and Managing Trustee; the second petitioner was elected as Secretary and the fifth petitioner was elected as Treasurer of the said Trust. The said Trust has started a School called 'First Step Public School' at Kanavaipatti in Nilakottai Taluk. The fourth petitioner was appointed as Correspondent of the said School. The respondents 5 and 6 approached the said Trust to admit and educate their sons as students in the School run by the said Trust. On 05.07.2015, a meeting was convened in the School between the teachers and the parents of the students and in that meeting, the respondents 5 and 6 have suggested that their relatives and friends are well settled in life and they are able to provide funds for 3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 the development of the School. Thereafter, the respondents 5 and 6 had extended huge financial support to the Trust and the School in the year 2014 and taking into consideration of their contributions, it was resolved to admit them as shareholders in the School. But, the request of the respondents 5 and 6 to admit them as Trustees was not succeeded and hence, they have started to interfere with the administration of the Trust and the School. The respondents 5 and 6 appeared to have a General Body Meeting on 14.11.2015 fraudulently and illegally, resulting in passing of some resolutions with forged signature of the Managing Trustee. They have also created a Supplementary Trust Deed by including themselves as Trustees and got the document registered on 16.12.2015. The petitioners, after coming to know about the creation of the Supplementary Trust Deed and its registration in a fraudulent manner, filed a complaint before the police on 04.02.2016 and on that basis, an enquiry was also conducted on 08.02.2016. The said Trust has also filed a suit in O.S.No.31 of 2016 and the same is pending on the file of the District Munsif, Nilakottai, seeking declaration of the resolution passed by the rival group as null and void. Subsequently, the respondents 5 to 12 have entered into the School premises on 30.03.2019 forcefully and after threatening the Trustees, had taken away some files. The 4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 Trustees have immediately given a complaint against the respondents 5 to 12 and battalion of police came to the School campus on 30.03.2019 and took all of them into custody. Meanwhile, the Inspector of Police, after registering the FIR under Section 145 Cr.P.C., has referred the matter to the first respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer. The first respondent, after conducting enquiry, has passed the impugned order directing both the 'A' party and 'B' party to administer the affairs of the School jointly. Aggrieved by the said order of the first respondent, the Founder of the Trust and his group of Trustees, who have been arrayed as 'B' party, have come forward with the present revision.
3. The case of the respondents 5 to 12, as evident from the counter statement of the respondents 5 to 8 and other records, in short is as follows:
M/s.Amutham Foundation was originally started with the petitioners under the Managing Trustee, who is the first petitioner, his daughter T.Kayalvizhi, wife T.Gowsalya and son T.Thangakathiravan, who were the other members of the Trust. The second petitioner, who is the close relative of the first petitioner, was also included as Trustee. The Trust has started a School called 'First Step Public School' under the Correspondentship of the third petitioner, who is the daughter 5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 of the first petitioner. Though it is a Public Trust, the Trust has not been doing any public interest oriented activities for the welfare of the common people. The Trust faced a huge financial crisis and at that time, they entered into a Supplementary Trust Deed dated 16.12.2015, by which clauses 4 and 5 of the original Trust Deed were amended to include the respondents 5 to 12 on payment of huge amount to the said Trust. As the petitioners themselves have clearly admitted their inaction and liability and the consequential controversies and misunderstanding between the petitioners and the respondents 5 to 12, they are estopped from challenging the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The petitioners themselves have admitted that the Trust was forced to arrive at a settlement to settle a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in two equal installments and accordingly, the Trust issued 14 cheques for the first installment in the name of 14 individuals. Since the Trust could not make necessary arrangement towards the first installment of Rs.75,00,000/-, necessary intimation was given to the respondents and on 04.08.2020, the Trust arranged a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and settled the same to the respondents. As per the Supplementary Trust Deed, the respondents have also been taking part in the administration of the Trust and the School run by the said Trust. After collecting huge sum of money nearly 6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 Rs.2 Crores from the respondents 5 to 12, the petitioners cannot prevent the said respondents from entering into the School and the Trust. Their attempt to prevent the respondents 5 to 12 has created an unrest and loss of peace in the locality, which is the cause for the order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The petitioners, what they cannot achieve directly by filing a civil suit, are attempting to achieve indirectly by challenging the Revenue Divisional Officer order. Already suit and counter suit are pending before the civil Court and the petitioners have to prove their exclusive right over the Public Trust to treat it as if it is their personal property in those proceedings and not by challenging Section 145 order. Hence, this Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed.
4. It is not in dispute that the second petitioner and the fifth respondent have preferred complaints and the Inspector of Police, on receipt of both the complaints, has registered C.S.R.Nos.84 of 2019 and 85 of 2019 and after enquiry, registered a case in Crime No.124 of 2019 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Divisional Magistrate, the first respondent herein. The first respondent has then initiated proceedings and then issued summons and conducted an enquiry and passed the 7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 impugned order directing both the 'A' party and 'B' party to jointly administer the affairs of the School till the disposal of the pending civil suits and the Inspector of Police, Batlagundu, was directed to maintain law and order in order to prevent any untoward incident. Challenging the said order of the first respondent, the third petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.31 of 2021 seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 17.12.2020 and quash the same and a learned Judge of this Court, vide order dated 06.01.2021, in W.M.P.(MD)No.20 of 2021 in W.P.(MD)No.31 of 2021, has granted interim stay and that subsequently another learned Judge of this Court, by holding that the writ petition is not maintainable and criminal revision alone is maintainable and that the Court cannot hold a parallel jurisdiction in such matters, dismissed the writ petition. The petitioners have then filed the present criminal revision.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that since the issue with regard to the administration of the Trust and the School is pending in O.S.No.31 of 2016 and O.S.No.77 of 2018 before the competent civil Court, the parallel proceeding initiated by the first respondent is non-est in law, 8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 that since the civil suit with regard to the same dispute is pending for adjudication before the competent civil Court, the first respondent ought not to have initiated parallel proceedings and that the impugned order indirectly amounts to dismissing the civil suit in O.S.No.31 of 2016 initiated by the petitioners and allowing the suit in O.S.No.77 of 2018 filed by the respondents 5 and 6 herein.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would further contend that the enquiry and the consequential order under Section 145 can be initiated only in the event of any land or water dispute and in the absence of any such dispute, the first respondent ought not to have entertained the matter under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and that since the entire issue is only with regard to the administration of the Trust and the School and there is no issue with regard to any land or any issue causing breach of peace, the first respondent ought not to have entertained the issue and passed the impugned order. He would further submit that the impugned order passed by the first respondent, without passing any preliminary order and providing necessary documents, is illegal, that the first respondent ought not to have arrived to the conclusion based on the void Supplementary Trust Deed and the consequential registration of the same and that 9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 since the signature of the Managing Trustee itself is forged and a criminal complaint was lodged in this regard, the first respondent ought not to have relied on such forged document and passed the impugned order. He would further contend that the General Body Resolution on 14.11.2015 and the Supplementary Trust Deed dated 16.12.2015 are void and the consequential registration of the same under document No.26/15 dated 16.12.2015 is void, that the impugned order directing administration of the School by 13 persons will cause disharmony to peace prevailing in the institution and that the first respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order without hearing all the parties.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 8 and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 9 to 12 would contend that the petitioners have themselves admitted that the respondents 5 to 12 have contributed huge sum of money to the Trust, that the respondents 5 to 12 cannot be prevented from taking part in the administration of the School and the Trust and that the petitioners are clearly estopped from challenging the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 10/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
8. Let us first take the objection of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that Section 145 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only in respect of the land or water dispute and the same cannot be applied for the administration of the Trust and the School.
9. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Section 145(1) speaks about the dispute concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof and the said provision is extracted hereunder:-
“145(1) :- Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.” 11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
10. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents, Sub-Section (2) explained the expression “land or water” which includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property. Though the dispute is with respect to the administration of the Trust and the School, the School is run by the Trust and since the land would include the buildings, the objection of the petitioners is devoid of substance and is liable for rejection.
11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the first respondent has passed the impugned order without passing any preliminary order, which is mandatory and as such, the order passed without complying with the mandatory requirement of a preliminary order under Sub-Section (1) of Section 145 of the Code, is invalid.
12. To counter this argument, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 has relied on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court, passed in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.863 of 2011 and 315 of 2015 dated 13.04.2016, wherein, the Full Bench has answered the reference and it is necessary to refer the four questions that were referred. 12/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 “(i) Whether the absence of a preliminary order under Sub-Section (1) of Section 145 of the Code would affect the very jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate to proceed further and to pass final order under Section 145 of the Code ?
(ii) Whether the failure of the Executive Magistrate to pass a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code is a mere irregularity or is it an illegality, affecting the very jurisdiction of the Magistrate?
(iii) If it is answered that it is only an irregularity, whether such irregularity would vitiate the final order automatically, even in the absence of any prejudice or miscarriage of justice to the parties?
(iv) If it is answered that the absence of a preliminary order is only an irregularity, whether the party aggrieved is required to raise objection at the earliest point of time or is it suffice if such an objection is raised at any stage subsequently?” After elaborate discussion, the Full Bench has answered the questions, which reads as follows:-
13/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 “1.Though the Executive Magistrate is required to pass a preliminary order under Section 145(1), the absence of the same will not vitiate his final order under Section 145(4) of the Code.
2.The failure of an Executive Magistrate to pass a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code is a mere irregularity and will not affect his jurisdiction.
3.Considering the nature of power vested on the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code, no prejudice will be caused to parties.
4.The aggrieved parties are empowered to move the very same Authority for reviewing his decision or in its absence, move the competent civil court for an appropriate relief either regarding the title or regarding the right to possession. In rare cases, they can move this Court for a judicial review either under Section 397 of the Code or under Article 226/227 of The Constitution.”
13. Considering the above, the Full Bench has specifically held that the failure of the Executive Magistrate to pass a preliminary order will not affect his jurisdiction to pass the final order. On applying the above legal dictum, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the objection of the petitioners in this regard, is absolutely devoid of merits and the same is liable for rejection. 14/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
14. Now turning to the main objection that since the issue with regard to the administration of the Trust and the School is pending in the suits filed by both the parties before the competent civil Court, the parallel proceeding initiated by the first respondent is non-est in law. It is not in dispute that the respondents 5 and 6 have originally filed a suit in O.S.No.6 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from obstructing or interfering with the functioning of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 therein in running the Trust and the School for 3 years period, as per the resolution dated 14.11.2015. The petitioners herein, after entering into appearance, have filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 10 and Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking orders to return the plaint in O.S.No.6 of 2016 for presenting the same before the competent Court in I.A.No.115 of 2016 and after enquiry, the Principal District Judge, vide order dated 04.03.2017, allowed the petition and ordered to return the plaint for presenting before the proper Court. Accordingly, the respondents 5 and 6 have represented the plaint before the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai and the same was taken on file in O.S.No.77 of 2018 and the same is pending. Meanwhile, the petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.31 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 of 2016 against the respondents 5 to 7 claiming the reliefs of declaration and injunction and it is necessary to refer the prayers hereunder:-
“(a) Declaring that the resolutions dated 05.07.2015 said to have been passed in the Trust Board of Amudham Foundation Trust is void and not enforceful and not binding the plaintiffs;
(b) Declaring that the resolutions dated 14.11.2015 said to have been passed in the Trust Board of Amutham Foundation Trust is void and not enforceful and not binding the plaintiffs;
(c) Declaring that the alleged “Supplementary Deed of Trust Deed Amutham Foundation” dated 16.12.2015 said to have been executed and registered as document No.26/2015 by the 1st defendant herein is illegal, void and not enforceful not binding the plaintiffs;
(d) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the management of the plaintiffs 2 to 5 of the 1st plaintiff Trust and the school described in the schedule hereunder;
(e) Directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit; 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
(f) and to grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant with causes of the suit and thus render justice.”
15. Admittedly, both the suits are pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai.
16. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners,
(i) (1985) 1 SCC 427 :
Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs. State of U.P. and others “2. ..... When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction 17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash the order of the learned Magistrate by which the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code has been initiated and the property in dispute has been attached. We leave it open to either party to move the appellate Judge in the civil litigation for appropriate interim orders, if so advised, in the event of dispute relating to possession.”
(ii) (2004) 13 SCC 421 :
Mahar Jahan and others vs. State of Delhi and others “4. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that this very property which is the subject-matter of these criminal proceedings is also the subject-matter of the civil suit pending in the civil court. The question as to possession over the property or entitlement to possession would be determined by the civil court. The criminal proceedings have remained pending for about a 18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 decade. We do not find any propriety behind allowing these proceedings to continue in view of the parties having already approached the civil court. Whichever way proceedings under Section 145 CrPC may terminate, the order of the criminal court would always be subject to decision by the civil court. Inasmuch as the parties are already before the civil court, we deem it proper to let the civil suit be decided and therein appropriate interim order be passed taking care of the grievances of the parties by making such arrangement as may remain in operation during the hearing of the civil suit.
....
7. We have simply noted the contentions raised by the parties. The civil court, in our opinion, would be the most appropriate forum to take care of such grievances and pass such interim order as would reasonably protect the interests of both the parties. The civil court may issue an ad interim injunction, may appoint a Commissioner or Receiver or may make any other interim arrangement as to possession or user of the property which is the subject-matter of proceedings in the civil court exercising the power conferred on it by Sections 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.19/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
8. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are directed to be quashed. The parties may approach the civil court. We make it clear that looking to the relationship of the parties, the civil court shall feel free to make such ad interim order as it deems fit consistently with the facts and circumstances of the case without feeling embarrassed by the limited scope of the suit which is a suit for permanent injunction.”
(iii) Order of this Court passed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12139 of 2018 dated 25.06.2018 (P.Nalini and another vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Commissioner of Police / Executive Magistrate, Greater Chennai City and others) “1. This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred seeking a direction to the first respondent to unlock the ground floor portion of the shop bearing no.53, Tana Street, Purasaiwakkam, which was unauthorisedly locked and sealed by the third respondent on 20.03.2018 and restore the possession to the petitioners.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were tenants in Door No.53, Tana Street, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai under the third respondent and the third respondent had illegally dispossessed 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 them and hence, the present Criminal Original Petition seeking the aforesaid relief.
....
7. In the opinion of this Court, no finding can be given with regard to the title, ownership or possession of the property in question. A proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. can be initiated only when there is any likelihood of breach of peace. In private disputes, provisions of Section 145, ibid, cannot be invoked.”
(iv) Order of this Court passed in W.P.(MD)No.495 of 2018 dated 22.01.2018 (T.Vellathurai vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tenkasi and another) “6. Admittedly, a civil suit is pending between the parties and earlier, the trial Court has also granted an order of interim injunction in favour of the second respondent herein and in an appeal, the trial Court order has been stayed and order of stay is still in force. In the above circumstances, when civil litigation is pending between the parties in respect of the above property, the first respondent cannot initiate parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It will only leads to multiplicity of litigations. ....
21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
9. In the above circumstances, when a civil dispute is pending between the parties and some interim orders have been passed by the civil Court, in that event, the first respondent cannot initiate parallel proceedings by invoking Section 145 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned notice issued by the first respondent is liable to be set aside.”
(v) Order of this Court passed in W.P.No.31867 of 2014 dated 25.08.2015 (S.K.Krishnan vs. The District Collector, Villupuram District and others) “5. An order passed under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. is only temporary order, meant to keep the law and order. Admittedly, both the petitioner and respondent No.4 have filed suits. Suits filed in O.S.No.249 of 2010 and O.S.No.338 of 2014 are pending disposal before the very same Court, namely, Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, and already an interim injunction was obtained by the petitioner in I.A.No.2996 of 2014 in O.S.No.338 of 2014, dated 12.09.2014 and the same is said to be in force. The said order has not been taken into consideration by the respondent No.3 while passing the order under challenge. Availability of revision will not take away the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
17. To counter the said arguments, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amresh Tiwari vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and another reported in AIR 2000 SC 1504, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that they are not stating that in every case where a civil suit is filed, Section 145 proceedings would never lie and it is only in cases where civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned can be applied for and granted by the civil court that proceedings under Section 145 should not be allowed to continue.
18. But, in the case on hand, the petitioners have taken a stand that the private respondents have created resolutions and the Supplementary Trust Deed on the basis of the said resolution and got it registered and on that basis, they have sought for declaration, that the resolutions alleged to have been passed on 05.07.2015 and subsequently on 14.11.2015 are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and also to declare that the Supplementary Trust Deed alleged to have been executed on 16.12.2015 is illegal and not binding the plaintiffs. Whether the resolutions passed in the Trust Board are void and whether the Supplementary 23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 Deed of Trust dated 16.12.2015 is void are the aspects that can only be gone into by the competent civil Court.
19. It is pertinent to note that when the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated, both the civil suits were pending at that time itself.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions have specifically laid a proposition that when a civil suit for possession or to declare the title in respect of the property, in question is pending, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be proceeded parallelly.
21. Considering the above and also on applying the above legal dictum, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is liable to be quashed. But, considering the nature of the dispute pending between the parties, this Court is of the view that necessary directions are to be issued to the civil Court for earlier disposal of the cases. It is not in dispute that after filing of the criminal revision, this Court, vide order dated 01.07.2021, has granted interim stay for the operation of the impugned order passed by the first respondent. Hence, this Court is of the further view that the 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021 parties are to be directed to maintain status quo, as of now, till the disposal of the suits.
22. In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed and the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1387/2020/A1 dated 17.12.2020 passed by the first respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Divisional Magistrate is hereby quashed. The learned District Munsif, Nilakottai is directed to complete the trial and dispose of both the cases in O.S.No.31 of 2016 and O.S.No.77 of 2018 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without fail. Parties are directed to maintain status quo, as of now, till the disposal of the suits. Both the parties are directed to extend their co-operation for disposal of the suits within the time stipulated. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
31.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
csm
25/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
To:-
1. The District Munsiff,
Nilakottai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer/
Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
4.The Thasildar,
Nilakottai Taluk,
Dindigul District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Batlagundu Police Station,
Dindigul District.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
26/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
27/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.340 of 2021
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
csm
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.340 of 2021
31.10.2022
28/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis