(1.) PETITIONER has been shown as counter -petitioner in M.C. No. 11/90 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Periyakulam, and respondent Manickam has been shown as petitioner in the same case. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Periyakulam, initiated action under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 21.3.1990 and caused service of the order passed by him on both the parties.
(2.) IN this petition preferred under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash all further proceedings in M.C. No. 11/90 aforestated, as not maintainable and an abuse of process of court, petitioner's counsel contended that in the impugned order, learned Executive Magistrate has not stated his grounds of satisfaction and further as if it was a final order, had restrained the petitioner herein, from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property by the respondent. Another ground urged was that the Executive Magistrate had directed both parties of file written statements or evidence by putting in affidavits in respect of their, claims, which again is contrary to the provisions of S. 145(1), Cr.P.C.
(3.) TO appreciate the contentions of the petitioner's counsel, it will be necessary to extract the impugned order passed by the Magistrate.