Madras High Court
Mohamed Mydeen vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum ... on 4 March, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.13998 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.13998 of 2020
and
W.M. P.(MD) 11653 of 2020
Mohamed Mydeen ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Deputy Collector,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Suthamalli Police Station,
Tirunelveli.
3.Maheswari
[email protected]
[email protected] ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to proceedings in
A5/M.C.03/2020(145) dated 21.09.2020 on the file of the first respondent
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Samel Gunasingh
For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate
For R3 to R5 : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.13998 of 2020
ORDER
The Challenge has been made to the show-cause notice issued
by the Executive Magistrate for appearance of the parties.
2. On the receipt of the FIR, where the police apprehended
breach of peace between two groups. The main ground on which the show-
cause notice was challenged is that a suit has already been filed in O.S.
No.194 of 2020, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, which
is pending. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be initiated by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, in respect of the same immovable property.
3. At the outset, I am unable to persuade the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The Full Bench of this Court rendered a judgment, dated
13.04.2016, in Criminal R.C.(MD) Nos.863 of 2011 etc., batch, in
A.Dhaveethu Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai and others, has held
as follows :
38. In Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey
{2000 (4) SCC 440}, 32 the Supreme court once again
considered Ram Sumer Puri Mahant and observed as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13998 of 2020
under:
“We are unable to accept the submission that the
principles laid down in Ram Sumer's case would only
apply if the civil Court has already adjudicated on the
dispute regarding the property and given a finding. In
our view Ram Sumer's case is laying down that
multiplicity of litigation should be avoided as it is not
in the interest of the parties and public time would be
wasted over meaningless litigation. On this principle it
has been held that when possession is being examined
by the civil Court and parties are in a position to
approach the civil Court for adequate protection of the
property during the pendency of the dispute, the
parallel proceedings i.e. Section 145 proceedings
should not continue.”
“We clarify that we are not stating that in every
case where a civil suit is filed, Section 145
proceedings would never lie. It is only in cases where
civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in
respect of the same property and where reliefs
regarding protection of the property concerned can be
applied for and granted by the civil court that
proceedings under Section 145 should not be allowed
to continue. This is because the civil court is
competent to decide the question of title as well as
possession between the parties and the orders of the
civil Court would be binding on the Magistrate.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13998 of 2020
5. When there is a suit in respect of possession or for
declaration of title, the same cannot be adjudicated by an Executive
Magistrate, whereas mere issuance of summons for holding an enquiry with
regard to the breach of peace, cannot be said that no such proceedings could
be issued.
6. Accordingly, it is for the petitioner to appear before the
Executive Magistrate and give a proper explanation.
7. With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13998 of 2020
To
1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum,
Deputy Collector,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Suthamalli Police Station,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13998 of 2020
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rm
W.P.(MD)No.13998 of 2020
and
W.M.P. (MD) No.11653 of 2020
04.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
