Madras High Court
Ragu vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum on 24 March, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.454 of 2020
&
Crl.M.P(MD)No.3959 of 2020
1. Ragu
2. Mutheeshwaran
3. Karmegam
4. Mathan ... Revision Petitioners/
“B” Party
Vs.
1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum
Sub Collector,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Town Police Station,
Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents/
Complainants
3. Manikandan
4. Maruthu Pandian
5. K.S.Manikandan ... Respondents/
A-Party
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by
the first respondent in Na.Ka.A4/274/2019, dated 17.03.2020 and to set aside the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja
For Respondents : Mr.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.1 & R.2
Mr.D.Balamuruga Pandi for R.3 to R.5
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed by
the first respondent in Na.Ka.A4/274/2019, dated 17.03.2020, thereby, restraining
the petitioners from taking possession / encroaching the subject property.
2. The case of the prosecution is that originally, the land measuring an
extent of 2,343 Sq.Feet in New Ward No.12, Old Ward No.15, Anna Nagar,
Ramanathapuram Taluk and District, belonged to one Logaguru and
Shanmugaguru. Later, the property was given in possession to the third
respondent's father under the registered Lease Deeds, dated 11.06.1992 and
12.03.1997 and the period of lease was 30 years. Thereafter, the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
respondent's father passed away and after his demise, the third respondent
managed the said properties. During the year 2006, a portion of the above
mentioned property was let out to the petitioner's father on rent by the third
respondent. The petitioner's father ran a TASMAC Bar in that property. During
the year 2015, the shop was in a dilapidated stage and as such, the petitioner’s
father requested to construct the building. Accordingly, the petitioner has
constructed two shops and the said amount has been let out for advance.
Thereafter, the monthly rent for one shop was fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand only) and for other two shops, the rent is fixed at Rs.6,000/- (Rupees
Six Thousand only). In fact, the petitioner’s father obtained electricity service
connection to the newly constructed shops and the shops are also assessed with
property tax in the name of the petitioner's father. The three shops were allotted
with Door Nos.44, 45 and 46. However, the third respondent threatened the
petitioner’s father to vacate the shop and as such, their father was constrained to
file a suit in O.S.No.162 of 2018 for permanent injunction restraining the third
respondent herein to vacate the petitioner’s father, except under due process of
law. He also filed a petition in I.A.No.1047 of 2018 and an interim injunction
was granted. While that being so, the third respondent lodged a complaint before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
the second respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The first
respondent initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The petitioners
appeared before the first respondent and submitted that the civil suit filed in
O.S.No.162 of 2018 for injunction is pending and the civil Court has taken
cognizance over the matter. The first respondent has no jurisdiction to deal with
the matter. In the meanwhile, the civil Court, without considering the documents
produced by the petitioner’s father, dismissed I.A.No.1047 of 2018. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner’s father preferred C.M.A.No.1 of 2019 and it is
pending on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanthapuram. While pending the said
appeal and the suit, the first respondent passed the impugned order without any
jurisdiction.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that
the respondents 3 to 5 herein submitted that the petitioner’s father was never
inducted by the third respondent’s father in respect of the shops situated in New
Ward No.12, Old Ward No.15 Anna Nagar, Ramanthapuram. After closure of Bar,
the petitioner’s father vacated the premises as early as on 03.05.2017 itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
While being so, the petitioner’s father filed a suit in O.S.No.162 of 2018 for
permanent injunction restraining the third respondent from vacating the
petitioner’s father from the shop, except under due process of law. The
petitioner’s father approached the Court below with unclean hands and as such,
their injunction petition was dismissed. While dismissing the injunction petition,
the trial Court observed that only after obtaining interim ex-parte injunction, the
petitioner’s father entered into certain compromise and therefore, dismissed the
interim injunction petition and the suit is not pending. Therefore, the said suit
would, in no way, prevent the proceedings initiated by the first respondent
herein. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father died on 27.02.2019. The petitioner tried
to trespass into the said property and as such, the third respondent lodged a
complaint before the second respondent. The second respondent made a request,
dated 12.05.2019 along with the report, dated 12.05.2019 to initiate proceedings
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. On receipt of the same, the first respondent conducted
a detailed enquiry and passed orders restraining the petitioners not to interfere
with the subject property.
4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
5. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father was a tenant under the third
respondent’s father, in respect of the shop premises situated in New Ward No.12
Old Ward No.15, Anna Nagar, Ramanathapuram District, out of a total extent
measuring 2343 Sq.feet. Their father filed a suit in O.S.No.162 of 2018 for
permanent injunction restraining the third respondent from vacating the
petitioner’s father from the shop except under due process of law. Along with the
suit, he also filed I.A.No.1047 of 2018 for interim injunction. Though initially
the trial Court has granted an ex-parte injunction, subsequently, it was dismissed
by order, dated 12.02.2019. The said order reads as follows:-
“kDjhuh; kDr;nrhj;jpYs;s fl;Lkhdj;ij fl;bdhuh?
kDjhuh; kDr;nrhj;jpy; vjph;kDjhuhplk;
thlifjhuuhf ,Ue;jhuh? kDr;nrhj;jpd; gioa fjT
vz;fs; 44> 45> kw;Wk; 46 kw;Wk; Gjpa fjT vz;fs; 40>
42 kw;Wk; 46V Mfpa tpguq;fs; gw;wp mry; tof;F
tprhuizapd; NghJ jhd; njhpa tUk;. kDr;rnrhj;jpy;
ghh; itj;J elj;jp tug;gl;lJ vd;w
tpguj;ij ,Ujug;gpYk; xg;Gf;nfhs;fpwhh;fs;. mt;thW
elj;jp tug;gl;l ghh; fle;j 03.05.2017 Kjy;
NtWaplj;jpw;f;F khw;wg;gl;lJ vd k.rh.M.14 Mtzk;
%yk; njhpa tUfpwJ. vdNt 03.05.2017k; Njjp Kjy;
kDr;nrhj;jpy; ghh; elj;jg;gltpy;iynad
ep&gzkhfpwJ. kDjhuh; jug;gpy; jhd; kDr;nrhj;jpy; lP
fil elj;jp te;jjhf Fwpg;gpLfpwhh;. kDr;nrhj;jpw;f;F
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
kpd; fl;lzk; nrYj;jpa urPJfis kDjhuh; k.rh.M.3
Mf FwpaPL nra;Js;shh; k.rh.M.3 Mtzj;jpd;gb
kDr;nrhj;jpd; kpd;rhu ,izg;G vz; vd;gJ 978 MFk;.
kpd;rhu ,izg;G vz; 978 f;Fz;lhd kpd;
fl;lz ];Nll;nkz;l; v.k.rh.M.4 kw;Wk; 5 Mf FwpaPL
nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. v.k.rh.M.5 Mtzj;jpd;gb 978 kpd;rhu
,izg;G vz; 2017 Nk khjk; Kjy;
cgNahfj;jpy; ,y;iynad njhpa tUfpwJ. mt;thW
cgNahfj;jpy; ,y;yhj fhuzj;jpdhy; kpd;rhu ,izg;G
vz;.978 fle;j 20.04.2018 kw;Wk; 06.12.2018 k; Njjpad;W
Jz;bf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd v.k.rh.M.4 Mtzj;jpd;b njhpa
tUfpwJ. mt;thW Jz;bf;fg;gl;l kpd;rhu ,izg;G vz;
978 fle;j 20.12.2018 k; Njjpad;W ,izg;G
toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. mt;thW Jz;bf;fg;gl;l
kpd;rhu ,izg;gpw;f;F nrYj;jpa urPJ jhd; kDjhuh;
jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l k.rh.M.3 Mtzj;jpd; Kjy;
urPjhFk;. vdNt 2017 k; Mz;L Nk khjk; kDr;nrhj;jpy;
nray;gl;L te;j ghh; NtWaplj;jpw;F khw;wk; nra;ag;gl;l
gpwF kDr;nrhj;J kpd;rhu ,izg;gpd;wp
cgNahfj;jpy; ,y;yhky; ,Ue;jpUf;fpwJ. mjd;gpwF
20.12.2018 k; Njjpad;W kpd;rhu fl;lzk; nrYj;jpa gpwF
kpd; ,izg;G kPz;Lk; toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,t;tof;F
21.12.2018 k; Njjpad;W jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. vdNt
Jz;bf;fg;gl;l kpd;rhu ,izg;G ngw;w gpwF ,e;j
tof;F jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ.
kDjhuh; jug;gpy; jhd; kDr;nrhj;jpy; B fil
elj;jp tUtjhf $Wfpwhh;. Mdhy; kDr;nrhj;jpypUe;j
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
ghh; khw;wk; nra;j gpwF kdr;nrhj;jpy; kpd;rhu ,izg;G
,y;yhky; cgNahfg;gLj;jg;glhky; ,Ue;J tUfpwJ.
kDjhuh; $WtJ Nghy; kDr;nrhj;jpy; kDjhuh; B fil
elj;jp te;jpUe;jhy; kDr;nrhj;jpw;f;Fz;lhd
kpd;rhu ,izg;G Jz;bf;fg;glhky; kDr;nrhj;jpy;
kpd;rhu ,izg;G ,Ue;jpUf;f $Lk;. Mdhy; ,e;j
tof;F jhf;fy; nra;tjw;F Ke;ija ehs; tiu
kDr;nrhj;jpy; kpd;rhu ,izg;G ,y;iy. vdNt kDjhuh;
$WtJ Nghy; kDr;nrhj;jpy; kDjhuh; B fil elj;jp
te;jhh; vd;w $w;W Vw;Wf;nfhs;Sk;gbapy;iy.
kDr;nrhj;jpy; kDjhuh; B fil elj;jp tUfpwhh;
vd;W fhl;Ltjw;F kDr;nrhj;jpw;f;Fz;lhd
Gifg;glq;fis k.rh.M.16 Mf FwpaPL nra;Js;shh;.
Nkw;gb Gifg;glq;fspy; B filf;Fz;lhd mk;rq;fs;
njhpa tUfpwJ. kDr;nrhj;jpy; ,t;tof;F jhf;fy;
nra;tjw;F Kd;G tiu kDjhuh; B fil elj;jp te;jhh;
vd;w $w;W Vw;Wf;nfhs;Sk;gbapy;iynad Vw;fdNt
jPh;khdpj;Jtpl;l fhuzj;jpdhy; kDjhuh; jug;gpy; jhf;fy;
nra;ag;gl;l Gifg;glq;fspYs;s B fil ,e;j tof;F
jhf;fy; nra;jgpwF Vw;g;gl;bUf;f Ntz;Lk;.
vdNt ,t;tof;fpy; ,ilf;fhy cWj;Jf;fl;lis
cj;juT ngw;w gpwF kDjhuh; Nkw;gb B filia
Vw;g;gLj;jpapUf;f Ntz;Lk;. MfNt kDjhuh; ,k;kDtpy;
gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l ,ilf;fhy cWj;Jf;fl;lis cj;juit
jtwhf gad;gLj;jpAs;shh; vd ep&gzkhfpwJ.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
6. Accordingly, while pending interim injunction, the petitioner’s father
entered into the shop premises. After the demise of their father on 27.02.2019,
the third respondent lodged a complaint and filed the report dated 12.05.2019.
The second respondent requested the first respondent to initiate proceedings
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. On receipt of the same, the first respondent issued a
notice to all the parties and conducted an enquiry. During enquiry, the first
respondent found that the subject property belongs to the third respondent and the
petitioners are not in possession of the subject property. Therefore, the first
respondent directed the petitioners not to encroach the subject property or not to
take possession over the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Sumer Puri
Mahant vs State of U.P. And Others (1985) 1 SCC 427 wherein, it has been held
as follows:
“2. ...When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein
the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated,
we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal
proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. There is no scope to
doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is
binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge
the proposition that parallel proceeding should not be permitted
to continue and in the event of a decree of the Civil Court, the
criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction
particularly when possession is being examined by the civil
court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for
interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for
adequate protection of the property during dependency of the
dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the
parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over
meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel
proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned
Magistrate should be quashed. We accordingly allow the appeal
and quash the order of the learned Magistrate by which the
proceeding under Section 145 of the Code has been initiated and
the property in dispute has been attached. We leave it open to
either party to move the appellate judge in the civil litigation for
appropriate interim orders, if so advised, in the event of dispute
relating to possession”
7. The Honorable Supreme Court held that civil litigation is pending for the
property, wherein, the question of possession is involved and has been
adjudicated. There is no justification for initiating parallel criminal proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. There is no scope for dispute over possession and that
the decree of the civil Court is not binding on the criminal Court.
8. By citing the said judgment, this Court in W.P.(MD)No.495 of 2018 by
order, dated 22.01.2018 held that when the civil dispute is pending between the
parties and the same interim order has been passed by the civil Court, the
Revenue Divisional Officer cannot initiate parallel proceedings by invoking the
provision under Section 145 Cr.P.C. As stated supra, the petitioner’s father filed a
suit for permanent injunction restraining the third respondent from evicting the
petitioner’s father from the shops, except under due process of law. Admittedly,
the said suit was filed for injunction restraining the third respondent from evicting
the petitioner’s father, except under due process of law. Further, the interim
injunction granted in favour of the petitioner’s father is also vacated by order,
dated 12.02.2019 itself. Therefore, at the time of initiation of proceedings under
Section 145 Cr.P.C, there was no interim order in favour of the petitioner’s father.
Mere pendency of the suit, is not a bar for the first respondent to initiate
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
9. In view of the above, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand. That apart, the petitioner’s father
after obtaining exparte interim injunction, entered into the subject premises.
Further, Ramanathapuram Municipality, by Memo, dated 13.12.2019 certified that
the subject property has been assessed in the name of the first respondent’s father
and the shop Nos.46 and 48 are lying vacant. After the demise of their father, the
petitioners are not in possession of the subject property. A perusal of the above
records would reveal that the petitioners are not in possession of the subject
property.
10. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the
order passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
24.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
To:-
1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum
Sub Collector,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Town Police Station,
Ramanathapuram.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.454 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J
mga
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.454 of 2020
&
Crl.M.P(MD)No.3959 of 2020
24.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
