Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.76 seconds)

M.Murugan vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate And on 28 October, 2013

10.The impugned order is also challenged on yet another ground i.e. for want of preliminary order under Sub section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Executive Magistrate has not passed any preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C thereby satisfying himself regarding existence of dispute, that is likely to cause breach of peace in his jurisdiction. The police report was followed by the issuance of summons to both the parties, the copy of which is enclosed at page 84 of the typed set and the same was followed by enquiry, outcome of which is the final order. Neither the preliminary order nor the final order would disclose any specific finding regarding existence of such state of affairs which is likely to lead to law and order problem. The Division Bench and the learned brother judges of our High court in the following decisions, held that the final order is vitiated for non passing of any preliminary order under Sub Section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C: (i)2003 Crl.LJ 3820 (M.Krishnamoorthy v. P.M.Neelamegham and others) (DB) (ii) (2007) 1 MLJ 928 (Thamaraiammal and another v. Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu and another and (iii)(2008) 2 MLJ 114 (Lalitha Narayan and another v. Latha Barathan and others).
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K B Vasuki - Full Document

Mrs.Lalitha Narayan vs Latha Barathan on 13 March, 2008

9. It is very much pertinent to refer to the verdict of this court in BASKARA NARAYANAN,A. v. So.MURUGESAN (2003(4) CTC 547) and also in THAMARAIAMMAL v. EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE-CUM-REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (2007 Crl.L.J. 1885) wherein this court has declared that passing of a preliminary order under section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a mandatory requirement beforeever proceeding further to pass final order. Therefore, it is found that the impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Parmod Kumar Soni vs State on 29 August, 2014

In this regard the counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sangam Kumar vs. SDM 1998 Cr.L.J 2096, judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Ms. Thamaraiammal & Anr. vs. The Executive Magistrate 2007 Cr.L.J 1885, judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Janga Mariamma vs. Revenue Divisional Officer 2008 Cr.L.J 4500 & judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Lucas & Ors. vs. Father CR No. 41/3 Parmod Kumar Soni vs. State & Anr. Page No. 5/7 Bilavendran & Ors 1997 Cr.L.J 1947.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1