Madras High Court
R.Mythili vs The Sub Divisional Cum on 15 July, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.R.C.No.773 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:15.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.773 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
R.Mythili,
W/o, Ravi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub Divisional cum
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cheyyar Division,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Tasildhar,
Cheyyar Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The Village Administrative Officer,
Anakkavur Village,
Cheyyar Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Anakkavur Police Station,
Cheyyar Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.773 of 2015
5. T.Senbakavalli
W/o, Thiruvengadam
6. M.Ratha
W/o, Muthu
7. M.Rani
W/o, Mani
8. D.Lakshmi,
W/o, Dhanasekar
9. L.Brinthavanam
W/o, Lakshmanan ... Respondents
Prayer:
Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,to
call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the first
respondent in M.C.No.190 of 2014 dated 08.07.2015 and setaside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj
For R1 to R4 : Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate, (Crl.Side)
For R5 to R9 : Steps not taken
*****
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.773 of 2015
ORDER
The order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 08.07.2015 passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C is under challenge in this Revision Petition.
2. The Revision Petitioner is a member of 'A' party in a dispute regarding the property in S.No.407/2B at Anakkavur Village, Cheyyar Taluk. According to the petitioner, her predecessor in title, had taken possession of the property, by virtue of court decree passed in O.S.No.186 of 1989 and pursuant to Execution Petition No.107 of 2002, possession was recorded on 09.09.2008. Thereafter, the predecessor in title sold the property to the petitioner on 28.07.2010. Since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property consist of land and building. Tax for the property is paid by her. While so, the members of the 'B' party tried to dispossesses her by force and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, she gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anakkavur Police Station on 27.11.2014, While so, the complaint was forwarded to the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.773 of 2015 first respondent by the police and pursuant to that, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., was initiated and the impugned order was passed, stating that Civil Proceedings is pending regarding title and therefore, action should be taken based on the outcome of the civil proceedings and till then status-quo should be maintained by both the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suits are pending in O.S.No.269 of 2012 and O.S.No.83 of 2015 on the date of passing the impugned order. No appeal is pending against the decree passed in O.S.No.186 of 1989. Further, in the impugned order, the first respondent has gone into the title of the property and directed the department to take action against the Firca Surveyor Karunakaran for mutating the revenue records and transferring the patta in the name of the petitioner. The first respondent, instead of deciding about the possession, overreached its power under Section 145 Cr.P.C, has decided the title and also directed the Tahsildar to change patta.
4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.773 of 2015
4. The learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and another] reported in 2000 (4) SCC 440 had clarified its earlier judgment in Jhummamal Vs. State of M.P reported in 1988 SCC (Criminal) 974, stating that merely because Civil Suit is pending , it does not mean that no order under Section 145 Cr.P.C., should be passed or any order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C., has to be quashed and depending upon the situation and facts, power under section 145 Cr.P.C., can be exercised. Further, the Court has also clarified in the judgment that it is only in case where the civil suit is for possession or for declaration, title in respect of some property and where the reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned can be applied for and granted by the Civil Court and the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., should not be allowed to continue.With this clarification made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amresh Tiwari's case, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the first respondent, taking note of the fact that the civil suit is pending, had directed the parties to maintain status-quo and therefore there is no error in the order.
5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.773 of 2015
5. This Court considering the impugned order, which came to be passed on the complaint given by the petitioner herein as an outcome of the enquiry conducted under section 145 Cr.P.C., and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the Government Advocate, hold that the impugned order has transversed the limit prescribed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. In this case, for the complaint given to the police regarding threat to the possession, the police has referred the matter to the first respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The scope is to find out who is in possession of the property and to resolve the dispute regarding possession to the limited extent to avoid disturbances to the public peace, whereas, in this case, independently the first respondent has gone into the title and directed the Tahsildar to change patta and had referred the pendency of the Civil Suit, however, has failed to give findings regarding the possession except directing the parties to maintain status-quo.
6. Considering the abovesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the first respondent dated 08.07.2015 is liable to be quashed. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.773 of 2015 Accordingly, it is quashed. The order of this Court is confined to the legality of the impugned order dated 08.07.2015 and it does not confer any right or title or possession to the petitioner herein, which fact should be decided by the appropriate Civil Court.
7. With the observation, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.07.2022 mfa Index:yes/No Internet:yes/No 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.773 of 2015 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
mfa To
1. The Sub Divisional cum The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar Division, Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Tasildhar, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The Village Administrative Officer, Anakkavur Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Anakkavur Police Station, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.773 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015 15.07.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis