The Executive Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is limited to ascertaining possession and maintaining status quo, and disputes over ownership or right to possession should be adjudicated by the civil court.

Common Order

Challenging the final order, dated 17. 2007, passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in Na.Ka. No.3718 /2007 (A2) by the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Salem, the petitioners have filed Crl.R.C. No.1637 of 2008. Questioning the correctness and validity of the subsequent order dated 30.10.2008 passed by the said authority in Na.Ka.No.3482/2008 (A2), in and by which several directions came to be issued, Crl.R.C. No.1527 of 2008 is preferred.

2. Inasmuch as both the Revision Cases are interconnected and stemming from the orders passed by the very same authority viz., first respondent, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner, who is the brother of R-2. The father of Petitioner No.1 and R-2 owned vast extent of lands and during 1956, partition was effected. The father died on 212. 2000 and after his demise, dispute arose between the brothers with regard to the properties which are not covered by the partition effected during 1956. As per the arrangement made between the parties, Jubilee estate fell to the share of the petitioners while Stanmore Estate to that of the 2nd respondent and water from common source was also divided between both the estates by common pipeline but separate water tanks and the water collected in the tanks is used for several purposes. In a dispute that arose with reference to sharing of water, R-2 lodged a complaint with the police against the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners trespassed into his property/Estate and destroyed the pipe-lines, diverting the water and preventing the flow of water by pipelines to the lands and further, they threatened the labourers working in his Estate with dire consequences. Due to the intervention of the well-wishers and the police, a Memorandum of Understanding has been entered into between the parties. Alleging trespass and vandalism as against the petitioners, R-2 forwarded a representation to the first respondent/Executive Magistrate. By order dated 04.05.2007, a preliminary order came to be passed by R-1, directing the parties to appear within 30 days for enquiry. The petitioners did not appear and final order was passed by the first respondent on 13.07.2007, confirming the rights of the 2nd respondent and subjecting the petitioners to criminal liability in the event of their transgressing or violating any of the conditions prescribed. The petitioners claim that the preliminary order was not served on them and that, without hearing them and receiving materials from their side, final order was passed. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal has been preferred to the higher authority who directed the petitioners to approach the civil forum. In the meantime, a writ petition has been filed by the 2nd respondent before High Court, Madras, seeking to implement the final orders passed by the first respondent. The writ petition was ordered on 30.04.2008, whereupon, further orders were passed by the authority on 30.10.2008, issuing certain directions. In such circumstances, the present revisions have been filed to set aside the final order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. as well as the further orders passed subsequently by the first respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by stating that both the orders passed by the Executive Magistrate are illegal and liable to be set aside, submits that the dispute between the parties are purely of civil nature and such dispute may have to be decided only by the competent civil court. Unless the learned Magistrate is satisfied about the actual existence of a dispute that would warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C., an enquiry cannot be conducted by him in a manner contrary to the procedure. When the authority is aware of the fact that the issues pertaining to the right and entitlement of the parties to the properties cannot be gone into and decided by him particular