Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9805 Mad
Judgement Date : 10 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.138 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.138 of 2022
1. Nedunchezhiyan
2. Thamayanthi .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-
Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate,
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.
2. Moorthy
3. Shanthi .. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to order, dated 03.01.2022 passed in
Na.Ka.No.A3/4770/2021 on the file of the 1st respondent-Revenue
Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate,
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District and set aside the same as illegal and
allow the Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Venkatesulu
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
Crl.R.C.No.138 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/5
Crl.R.C.No.138 of 2022
ORDER
This Revision is filed challenging the impugned order, dated
03.01.2022 passed by the first respondent in exercise of powers under
Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is seen from the records that there was earlier civil proceedings
between the parties, whereby, the petitioners filed a suit for permanent
injunction, which was dismissed and the first appeal, having been
dismissed, they approached this Court by way of Second Appeal No.906 of
2009. By a judgment, dated 06.09.2019, this Court had held that the
possession claimed by the petitioners on the strength of unregistered
usufructuary mortgage cannot be a legal possession and held it to be an
illegal possession and refused the order of injunction.
3. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners are in defacto possession of
the property. The respondents, however, cannot resort to their eviction by
way of Section 145 of Cr.P.C., proceedings and the impugned order is
passed restraining the petitioners from entering into the property. Therefore,
to that extent, the exercise of power by the first respondent is unsustainable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.138 of 2022
and the proper remedy available to the respondents 2 and 3 is to file a Civil
Suit and get the petitioners evicted.
4. In that view of the matter, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed
and the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 03.01.2022 is
set aside. However, the respondents 2 and 3 shall workout their remedy to
evict the petitioners in the manner known to law. Consequently,
Crl.M.P.No.1286 of 2022 is closed.
10.06.2022 Index : yes/no Speaking/Non-speaking order grs
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.138 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
grs
Crl.R.C.No.138 of 2022
10.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!