SASIKUMAR Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE TIRUCHENGODE NAMAKKAL DISTRICT
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate Tiruchengode Namakkal District
Click here to view full judgement.
P.N. Prakash, J. -
(1.) The final order dated 14.07.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District (for brevity "the Executive Magistrate"), the first respondent herein, under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C., is under assail in this criminal revision petition.
(2.) The brief facts are as under:
2.1 A dispute arose between Periasamy group, the private respondents herein ("A" party) and Sasikumar group, the petitioners herein ("B" party) in connection with the enjoyment of a pathway in Mallasamudram Village S.No.383/2.
2.2 According to "A" party, they have a right of passage to their lands through the said pathway and that the "B" party had locked the pathway in order to prevent them ("A" party) from using it.
2.3 It is seen that the quarrel had erupted into violence and on the complaint of Periasamy ("A" party), a case in Mallasamudram P.S. Cr.No.286 of 2019 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324, 427 and 506 (II) IPC against Sasikumar and others of "B" party.
2.4 While the investigation was in progress, the quarrel further escalated and there was an apparent threat to peace and so, the Mallasamudram police registered a case in Cr. No.310 of 2010 on 21.09.2019 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against the members of "A" party and "B" party and submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District, the first respondent herein (for brevity "the Executive Magistrate"), for appropriate action.
2.5 The Executive Magistrate called for a report from the Village Administrative Officer, in pursuance whereof, the latter submitted his report on 22.10.2019. After considering the reports submitted by the police and the Village Administrative Officer, the Executive Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. on 19.11.2019 and called upon both parties to appear before him and produce evidence in support of their respective stands.
2.6 Hearings were conducted on various dates and ultimately, by order dated 14.07.2020, the Executive Magistrate has determined that the members of "A" party were dispossessed or prevented from using the pathway by the members of the "B" party and directed restoration of status quo ante. Challenging the said order, the members of "B" party have preferred the instant criminal revision.
(3.) The learned counsel for "B" party submitted that when a civil case in O.S. No.98 of 2011 is still pending before the Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode, in respect of the disputed land, the Executive Magistrate ought not to have passed the impugned order at all.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.