Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 2270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
R. THARANI, J.
P. Saravanan - Appellant
Versus
The Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer and Ors. - Respondents
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 287 of 2020, Crl. M.P. (MD) Nos. 2446 and 4042 of 2020
Decided On : 09-09-2020
For the Appellant : J. Jeyakumaran.
For the Respondents:Anandha Devi, Government Advocate and Lajapathi Roy.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 145 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b), 353, 332 and 506(ii) - Criminal Intimidation - Trespassed into property - Petitioner is a disabled person running a tyre shop by name and style as "Saravanan Tyres" in door no. 31/1, workshop road - Petitioner lodged a complaint before third respondent Police and FIR in Crime was registered and first accused is petitioner's elder brother, his wife is the second accused, mother of petitioner is third accused and A4 to A7 are employees of first accused - Petitioner and his elder brother jointly purchased the property in the name of the petitioner and his elder brother, both their wives and their mother - Held, First respondent in his order in paragraph no. 4 has given a finding that "the fourth respondent was in possession and enjoyment of property" - Reasons stated for this decision is the information given by the third respondent. The wording in second paragraph of the findings of first respondent "in case said Saravanan was keeping hold of property" clearly reveals that the first respondent was not sure, who was in possession of the property at that time - First respondent has not conducted proper enquiry and he has not examined any witnesses. Observation that "the fourth respondent is entitled for possession" is unwarranted when a civil case is pending - Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
ORDER :
R. Tharani, J.
1. This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in R.O.C. No. 4627/2019M dated 10.02.2020, on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station has lodged a complaint in Crime No. 418 of 2020 and referred the same to the first respondent. In R.O.C. No. 4627/2019 M, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order on 10.02.2020 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Against that order, the revision petitioner preferred this revision.
3. Brief substance of the petition is as follows:-
The petitioner is a disabled person running a tyre shop by name and style as "Saravanan Tyres" in door no. 31/1, workshop road, Simmakkal, Madurai. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the third respondent Police on 21.12.2019 and the FIR in Crime No. 5 of 2020 was registered under Section 147, 148, 506(ii) and 379 of IPC on 02.01.2020 The first accused is the petitioner's elder brother, his wife is the second accused, the mother of the petitioner is the third accused and A4 to A7 are the employees of the first accused. The petitioner and his elder brother jointly purchased the property in the name of the petitioner and his elder brother, both their wives and their mother, Rajalakshmi. On the instigation of the elder brother, the revision petitioner and other members entered into a settlement on 14.09.2018 in which, the building in door no. 31/1, Workshop road with four floors was allotted to the petitioner. Six properties were allotted to the elder brother and one property was allotted to the sister, Malathi and one property was allotted to the mother. The elder brother trespassed into the property of the petitioner and committed theft of tyres worth of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and the investigation is pending.
4. On the instigation of the elder brother, the Inspector of Police, by name, Flower Sheela registered a FIR and referred the matter to the first respondent herein. The first respondent summoned all the parties. The petitioner filed a statement pointing out the pendency of the civil proceedings and questioned the jurisdiction of the first respondent. The civil Court alone is competent to decide the question of the title and possession in a disputed private party. But the first respondent has made an observation that the fourth respondent is entitled for possession of the property and further directed the Inspector of Police to close the shop and to keep it under lock and key.
5. The fourth respondent already filed a suit in O.S. No. 489 of 2018 for a prayer of injunction and his interlocutory petition in I.A. No. 635 of 2018 was already declined by the trial Court.
6. The first respondent exceeds his power and interferes into the civil rights of the parties and decided the title without any authority of law. The impugned order was passed on 10.02.2020 and the order copy was served on the respondents on 11.02.2020 and the order copy was served on the petitioner only on 14.02.2020 at about 03.30 p.m. Even without permitting the petitioner to take his belongings, the respondents came to the shop and locked the shop. The petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No. 3360 of 2020 and the same was dismissed on 04.03.2020 by the Writ Court with liberty to file revision petition before this Court. Hence, the petitioner preferred this revision.
7. Brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent is as follows:
One Pitchai Chettiar was doing tyre business in the rental building at door no. 18, workshop road, Simmakkal, Madurai. He has two sons and a daughter, namely the fourth respondent, the petitioner and the sixth respondent. The said Pichai Chettiar died on 23.04.2008. After his demise, his wife Rajalakshmi and his two sons were jointly running the business.
8. They jointly purchased a site with an extent of 2200 sq. ft. in T.S. No. 1243, D. No. 31/1 situated at Workshop road, Madurai on 19.09.2008 and subsequently they shifted
