The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Executive Magistrate must satisfy himself subjectively and pass an order in writing regarding his subjective satisfaction before initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The judgment also emphasizes the binding nature of a civil court decree on the criminal court, stating that the Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. when a civil court has already passed a decree on the matter.

The petitioners, who are arrayed as 'A' party in the proceedings, initiated by the first respondent, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.92/2002/m3, have filed this petition, to call for the records relating to the above said proceedings, and to quash the same, since the proceedings initiated are not in accordance with law.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, on the basis of a report submitted to him, by the Tahsildar, Thiruvaiyur, had initiated a proceedings and issued notice to the parties viz., the petitioners herein, arraying them as 'A' party and respondents 3 & 4 herein, arraying them as 'B' party.

3. The proceedings relate to Survey Nos.458/8, 456/5, 453/2, 452/5, 450/12, etc. situated in Thiruchanampoondi Village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk. It seems, respondents 3 & 4 have claimed some right over the properties, and on that basis, the Tahsildar satisfied himself, that there would be a law and order problem. The Tahsildar, who has not initiated the proceedings, reported the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, as per the letter dated 15.7.2002, and it appears, the Revenue Divisional Officer, without satisfying himself, about the disturbance of the law and order problem, mechanically issued a notice to the parties, directing them to appear before him on 16.8.2002 at about 3.00 pm. for enquiry, with necessary documents.

4. 'A' party therein viz., the petitioners, aggrieved by the said notice, have filed this petition as aforementioned.

5. Despite the fact, sufficient time was given, adjourning this case, number of times, there was no representation on behalf of respondents 3 & 4, though the counsel entered into appearance.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to quash the proceedings, submits that in view of the previous proceedings between the parties, before the competent civil Court, the proceedings initiated by the first respondent, is not at all maintainable and it is an abuse of process of law, on the basis of the instigation by B party. He further pointed out, when the civil courts have given a categorical finding, that respondents 3 & 4 are not entitled to any declaration, nor entitled to any injunction, or in the alternative for recovery of possession, question of converting the said dispute, once again under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is an abuse of process of law, setting at naught the earlier proceedings, which is impermissible. The learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out, that the petitioners have filed a petition before the High Court, Madras, and obtained an order of injunction in W.M.P.No.16630/2002, on the basis of the established right, in the previous proceedings. But, unfortunately, the Revenue Divisional Officer, has initiated a proceedings, which is contrary to the established law. On these lines, developing the points, he would urge for quashing, which are not seriously, challenged by the learned Government Advocate.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy in this case, and to decide whether 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings could be initiated or not, we have to see certain facts or established facts, based upon the previous legal proceedings. The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. The third respondent is the son of one Rangasamy and the 4th respondent is the son of one Govindaraju. Krishnasamy, the father of the first petitioner and his brother Rangasamy had owned certain lands jointly. According to the petitioners, there was a division between the brothers and the properties in dispute were allotted to the share of Krishnasamy, but denying the division, the third respondent, and his brother had filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.286/57 on the file of District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru, which was dismissed. The dismissal of the suit was confirmed in A.S.No.115/1963, on the file of the Sub Court, Thanjavur, which was further confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.1551/1969. Thereafter, not satisfied with the dismissal of the partition suit, the third