This petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi in M.C.No.30 of 2008.
2. The gist of the petition filed by the petitioner would run as follows: The petitioner purchased an extent of 8497.5 sq.ft site in Survey No.1196/1B/1 of Valliyoor Village together with building in Door Nos.301 and 302 in full and portion of Door No.303 by virtue of the sale deeds dated 31.05.2004 and 30.06.2004 and the revenue records were also mutated in the name of the petitioner. When the petitioner had made arrangement in the second week of April 2008 for repairing the buildings, the respondents 2 and 3 created problem and hence a police complaint was lodged. In the meanwhile, the petitioner received a communication from the fourth respondent purporting under
Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., which contains no particulars or grounds on which 145(1) Cr.P.C. proceedings came to be invoked. When he approached the fourth respondent, it seems that the first respondent had registered an F.I.R. under
Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., which he has no power and neither
Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. can be stated as a substantial offence and without adverting to the fact that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to register the F.I.R. under
Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. and the order purported to be issued by the fourth respondent taking cognizance through that F.I.R. also suffers from the application of mind. Hence, the petitioner prays to quash the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi in M.C.No.30 of 2008.
3. Heard Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Sivathilagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and also Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the 'B' party in the said proceedings and the respondents 2 and 3 are referred as 'A' party before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, the fourth respondent herein and the petitioner in the said proceedings is the Inspector of Police, Valliyoor, the first respondent herein and the said proceeding was taken cognizance by the fourth respondent on 20.10.2008 in the case registered as Crime No.157 of 2008 on the file of the first respondent police under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. He would further submit in his argument that the fourth respondent has no jurisdiction to go into the matter, but he had taken cognizance of the case under
Section 145 Cr.P.C., since the 'A' party viz., respondents 2 and 3 were not the owners of the said property and their title is in dispute in the cases pending before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli and District Munsif Court in O.S.No.439 of 1994, even as per the written statement filed by the said respondents and the petitioner has got the title to the said property by virtue of the sale deed obtained from the title holder for proper consideration and the patta was also transferred in his name and the said mutation would prove the possession of the petitioner in the suit property and therefore there is no necessity for the petitioner to refer the dispute to the fourth respondent for deciding the possession of the disputed property, as if there are disputes arising in possession of the said property.
5. He would also submit that the fourth respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute, which is of civil in nature and he has no jurisdiction to decide the title of any person regarding the disputed property, which is the subject matter of the proceedings. Moreover, he would submit that the fourth respondent cannot go into the question of title and he cannot also pass any order against the revenue records issued in favour of the petitioner. He would further submit that the fourth respondent ought not to have taken cognizance of the case and therefore the said proceedings has to be quashed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit in his argument that the Civil Courts have decided that the property did not belong to Lurthammal, from whom the petitioner obtained sale deed and it was categorically decided by the Civil Courts that the husband of Lurthammal viz., Knanam Poobalarayar had no right in the property and it belongs to the people of Parathakula Community and the alleged execution of the sale deed executed by the said Knanam Poobalarayar in favour of his wife Lurthammal was a sham and nominal document and it was categorically found by the learned District Munsif of Valliyoor in O.S.Nos.1363 and 1365 of 1988 that those sale deeds executed by Lurthammal were not valid and the appeal preferred by the persons, who failed in the suits are pending and therefore the said Lurthammal may not have any title to the suit property and the petitioner, who is stated to have got the property from the said Lurthammal cannot also get the title of the disputed property and the petitioner was trying to put up construction over the said property belonging to the Parathakula community people and it would lead to a dispute among the Parathakula community people and Nadar community people and therefore the reference made by the first respondent to the fourth respondent for taking cognizance of the case under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not correct and there is no need to set aside the proceedings pending before the fourth respondent.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit in his argument that the case was registered by the first respondent under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. and was taken cognizance by the fourth respondent in order to avoid the breach of peace in between the two communities and the fourth respondent is having power to enquire into the matter for the purpose of prevalence of peace and as per the provisions, the fourth respondent is empowered to pass such orders as contemplated therein and the pendency of cases before the Civil Courts are not in between the 'A' party and 'B' party and therefore the fourth respondent is empowered to decide the matters envisaged under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the petition.
8. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on all sides. Registration of case by the first respondent and the cognizance taken by the fourth respondent for issuing summons to the respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioner herein under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. is questioned here.
9. According to the submissions made by the petitioner that he is in possession of the disputed property and he was granted patta by the revenue authorities, which is a conclusive proof for establishing possession and therefore there need not be any enquiry for finding out as to who is in possession of the suit property, by the fourth respondent. However, the respondents 2 and 3 ('A' party) would contend that the seller of the property to the petitioner ('B' party) viz., Lurthammal was not having any title to the said property and it was decided accordingly by the District Munsif Court, Valliyoor in O.S.Nos.1363 and 1365 of 1988 and the appeals preferred by the buyers from the said Lurthammal are pending before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli. Admittedly, no civil case is pending in between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 in respect of the disputed property. The possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit property has been challenged by the respondents 2 and 3 and therefore the breach of peace is said to have been emanated. As per the provisions of
Section 145 Cr.P.C., the fourth respondent is empowered to decide as to who is in physical possession of the disputed property on the date of order or within two months prior to his order, if any person is dispossessed from the said property. The case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the said property (the disputed property) and in recognition of the same, patta has been issued in his favour. If really, the claim of the petitioner is found true, the fourth respondent ought to have decided accordingly. Similarly, if the respondents 2 and 3 are able to show that the possession of the petitioner in the disputed property is unlawful or the petitioner is not in possession of the disputed property, the fourth respondent has to decide the matter accordingly and that too in respect of possession, alone.
10. Indisputably, the fourth respondent cannot go into the question of title to the suit property to which the civil Courts are empowered to adjudicate such disputes. The apprehension of the first respondent to the effect that there could be a possible breach of peace in between the Parathakula community people and Nadar community people. Therefore, the case has been registered and the matter has been referred to the fourth respondent and the case was taken cognizance by the fourth respondent. In these circumstances, the first respondent and the fourth respondent are found to have acted in accordance with law and there is no need to interfere with the said actions of the respondents 1 and 4.
11. I could see that the respondents 2 and 3 as 'A' party had submitted their written statement. The petitioner herein as 'B' party is yet to file his written statement before the fourth respondent in order to state his case. Therefore, the fourth respondent is directed to give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner herein ('B' party before him) to state his case in the form of written statement and thereafter to record the evidence in respect of the submissions of both parties and to decide the matter strictly within the four corners of 145 Cr.P.C.
12. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason to quash the proceedings pending before the fourth respondent. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed, but with the directions stated above. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.
smn To
1.The Inspector of Police, Valliyoor.
2.The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.