1987 Supreme(Ker) 132
Judges : PADMANABHAN
P.C.ASRAF - Appellant
Versus
V.P.ABDULLA - Respondent
Case No : Crl.R.P. No. 167 of 1983
Decided On : 03/18/1987
Advocates Appeared :
G. Mohan; K. Moni; For Petitioners P.A. Mohammed (T); Public Prosecutor; For Respondents
The Magistrate must have jurisdiction to take action under S.145, and the order must be within the competence and provisions of S.145.
Headnote:
Dispute arose over the display of name boards in a building between A-party and B-parties. The Magistrate initiated action under S.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the jurisdiction to do so was questioned. The Magistrate proceeded under S.145 despite the dispute not being regarding possession, and issued an order beyond the competence of the Magistrate and the provisions of S.145. The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed and the Magistrate's order was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over the display of name boards in a building between A-party and B-parties. Magistrate initiated action under S.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The Magistrate's order was beyond the competence and provisions of S.145.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take action under S.145, validity of the Magistrate's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Magistrate proceeded under S.145 despite the dispute not being regarding possession, and issued an order beyond the competence of the Magistrate and the provisions of S.145.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed and the Magistrate's order was set aside.
1. B-parties in MC 46/78 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tellicherry seek to revise the final order in the proceeding under S.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. First respondent is A-party before the Magistrate and petitioners 1 and 2 B-parties. In the first floor of a two storied building by the side of O. V. Road, Tellicherry A-party is conducting a Radio shop as tenant and in the ground floor rooms B-parties are conducting textile shops. There was dispute between them on the question of displaying name boards in the parapet in front of the building. A-party alleged that originally B-parties displayed their name boards one foot below his name board, but subsequently changed the name board and displayed it touching his name board and thereby caused obstruction of visibility to it.
3. A-party complained about this to the police and the police made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 19-12-1978. On the basis of that report the Magistrate initiated action under S.145 of the Code and issued a preliminary order. Both sides were required to put in their written statements and they did so.
4. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take action under S.145 was questioned. It appears that B-parties contended before toe Magistrate that if at all the proceeding is maintainable it is only under S.147 and not under S.145. That contention appears to be correct because the dispute between the parties was regarding the extent of the right to display name board in the parapet and not regarding possession. But the Magistrate unfortunately rejected that contention and proceeded under S.145 itself even though S.147(4) authorises proceedings commenced under either of the Sections to be converted to one under the other Section. This is an irregularity committed by the Magistrate because no proceedings under S.145 could have been had by him. After taking evidence the Magistrate found that B-parties carried out alterations to their name board within two months of the preliminary order. B-parties were directed to reduce the width of the board by one foot. They were also directed to remove the tubelight and shade fixed by them on the board. The direction was to do these things within 15 days and it was provided that in case of default the order will be carried oat through the Revenue Inspector with police help and the costs recovered from B-parties. They were also threatened with penalty as laid down under S.188 of the Indian Penal Code. Such a penalty is provided under S.136 and 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with the proceedings under S.133. In such a case compliance with the order becomes necessary and the penalty is for non-compliance. There is no corresponding provision for penalty under S.188 of the Indian Penal Code in proceedings under S.143 or 147. In a proceeding under S.145 what is necessary is only restoration of possession or prohibition from disturbance of possession, as the case may be, until evicted in due course of law. Therefore the warning regarding penalty under S.188 of the Indian Penal Code is also not justified.
5. This revision petition happened to be dismissed on 12-4-1985 in the absence of the petitioners and counsel on the representation on behalf of the first respondent that the parties settled their disputes out of court. By order dated 28-5-1985 it was restored to file on the application of the petitioners under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. It is true that a dispute contemplated under S.145(1) concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof includes buildings, crops etc. as stated in sub-s. (2). But the primary object of the proceeding under the provision is the prevention of the breach of the public peace arising in respect of a dispute relating to immovable property. The Section appears in Chap.10 relating to maintenance of public order and tranquillity which is the main object of the provision even though it comes under the subheading D relating to dis