IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 10.03.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.R.C.No.606 of 2016
Mathivanan .. Petitioner Vs
1. P.Ponnusamy Chairman, P.N.Patty Town Panchayat, Mettur Dam R.S.2
2. K.Varatharajan
3. P.Murugesan Contractor, TMP Nagar, Karumalai Koodal, Mettur Dam (Rs)2.
4. C.Ellapan Jegamathi Chemicals, T.M.P. Nagar, Karumalaikoodal, Mettur Dam (Rs)2.
5. K.C.Ganesan
6. The Inspector of Police, Karumalai Koodal, Mettur Dam 2.
Police Station. .. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under section 397(1) r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order made by the Judicial Magistrate II, Mettur, made in C.M.P.No.4238/2015 dated 11.01.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.Mathivanan Party in person For RR 1 to 5 : Mr.S.Doraisamy For 6th Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R Challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, in C.M.P.No.4238 of 2015 dated 11.01.2016, filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the present revision is filed.
2. According to the petitioner he had filed a private complaint on the ground that his father one Mr.T.M.P.Subramanian had obtained a decree against P.N.Patti Town Panchayat, in O.S.No.42/89 in the District Munsif Court, Mettur. Subsequently, he had been in the possession and enjoyment of the property. Subsequently, on 05.01.2015, the respondents herein trespassed into the petitioner's land cut and removed the cholam crops, destroyed the huts, looted the agricultural implement and wooden flocks, and dislocated the survey stones. Subsequently, he lodged a complaint to the police, since no action has been taken and the petitioner has filed the private compliant.
3. The trial Court after considering the complaint dismissed the same stating that from the complaint and evidence, no offence is made out against the respondents and alleged in OS.No.42/89, shows only restrictive injunction granted in favour of father of the complainant, therefore, it is only a Civil dispute, hence the complaint was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. Heard Mr.Mathivanan, party in person and he contended that when there is a Civil Court Decree in their favour, the respondent disobeyed the decree and entered into the property and committed Criminal violence, and there is prima facie material available on record to proceed with the complaint and to issue process.
4. I have considered the submission and perused the records carefully.
5. The alleged decree obtained by the petitioner's father in OS.No.42 of 89 only against some 3rd parties and Executive Officer P.N.Patti Town Panchayat nor against the respondents therein. Apart from that a V.BHARATHIDASAN, J., jv perusal of the decree it is seen that no permanent injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner's father, only a restrictive injunction was granted against the Executive Officer, P.N.Patti Town Panchayat, now based on the above decree, the petitioner cannot claim any criminal trespass and the respondents are not party in the suit. If at all there is any grievance against the respondents herein, petitioner can maintain the Civil suit against them or file necessary contempt petition alleging violation of the decree passed by the Civil Court if law permits. The trial court has rightly considered the same and dismissed the private complaint. I find no illegality in the order passed by the Court below and there is no merit in the revision.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed.
10.03.2017
jv Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To The Judicial Magistrate II, Mettur.
Crl.R.C.No.606 of 2016 http://www.judis.nic.in