Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1636

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, JJ.
O. Panneerselvam – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.7119-7121 of 2022 (Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 20-07-2022 in CRLOP No. 16343 of 2022, CRLOP No. 16485 of 2022 and CRLOP No. 16695 of 2022 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
Decided On : 12-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P. Raja Lakshmi, Advocate, Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, Advocate, Mr. Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate, Mr. K. Gowtham Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shiva Krishnamurti, Advocate, Ms. Aakriti Priya, Advocate, Mrs. Lakshmi R. Rao, Advocate, Ms. Gauri Pasricha, Advocate, Mr. Prabhu V., Advocate, Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Advocate, /AAG, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AoR. Ms. Nupur Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Advocate, Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Advocate, For the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdictional requirement for invoking Section 145(1) of the CrPC must be met, and the notice must be based on a genuine dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning land or water within the Executive Magistrate's jurisdiction.

Headnote:
Section 145(1) - Dispute over Possession of Building - The court held that the notice under Section 145(1) of the CrPC was not justified as the FIR did not indicate the existence of a dispute concerning the building in question. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement for invoking Section 145(1) was not established.
Fact of the Case:

The notice under Section 145(1) of the CrPC was issued based on an FIR indicating a dispute between two factions of a political party over the possession of a building.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the FIR did not support the existence of a dispute concerning the building, and therefore, the jurisdictional requirement for invoking Section 145(1) was not met. The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions and clarified that the observations in the impugned order would not affect other pending legal proceedings between the parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the notice under Section 145(1) of the CrPC was justified based on the FIR indicating a dispute over the possession of a building.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 145(1) of the CrPC, which requires the satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water within their jurisdiction. The court concluded that the notice was not justified as the FIR did not support the existence of a dispute concerning the building.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and the court clarified that the observations in the impugned order would not affect other pending legal proceedings between the parties.

ORDER

1. The notice under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973[1] issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, South Division, Chennai dated 11 July 2022 relied upon an FIR in Crime No 190 of 2022 registered at E2 Royapettah Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 read with Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992. The notice states that:

'It is seen from the contents of the FIR that it is a dispute between two factions of a political party with regard to possession of the building in question'.

[1] 'CrPC'

2. The FIR at Annexure P-4 ex facie indicates that there was no allegation indicating the existence of a dispute in relation to the building in question.

3. Section 145(1) of CrPC postulates the satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists, inter alia, 'concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction'. The expression 'land' is defined to include buildings in Section 145(2). In the present case, the sole basis of the notice dated 11 July 2022 is the FIR in Crime No 190 of 2022, a bare reading of which is sufficient to indicate that there was no dispute concerning land.

4. On the above premises, the impugned order of the Single Judge of the High Court has to be sustained for the reason that the jurisdictional requirement for the invocation of Section 145(1) of CrPC was not established in the circumstances of the present case.

5. For the above reasons, we do not find merit in the Special Leave Petitions. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

6. However, since other legal proceedings are pending between the parties, it is clarified that the observation that the observations contained in the impugned order shall not affect the merit of those proceedings.

7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document