Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
P. Pitchiyappan – Petitioner
Versus
Karpagam – Respondent
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 150 of 2017
Decided On : 09-02-2021
Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 190, 397 and 401 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) - Criminal Revision – Punishment for criminal intimidation - Permanent injunction - Settlement deed - Revision petitioner has filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against respondents 1 to 3 alleging that the property, was purchased by one and his wife , that since both of them had no issues, they have executed a Will in favour of elder brother's son/ , petitioner herein , settling said property in his favour; that said and his wife had died respectively, that thereafter petitioner has become owner of suit property and he is in enjoyment of same, that first accused claiming to be adopted daughter of said , had created a joint settlement deed in favour of her husband/second respondent, that first respondent has then filed a suit in O.S. on file of Principal District Munsif Court, to declare herself as a legal heir against Tahsildar, that said suit was dismissed , that petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S. on file of Sub Court, to declare that said property belongs to him and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and to declare that settlement deed created by respondents 1 and 2 as null and void and also to declare the petitioner as the sole heir – Whether order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, in Crl. M.P. is liable to be revised is the point for consideration - whether any prima-facie case is made out in complaint or not - Whether averments in petition would constitute cognizable offences and same is supported by any materials - Held, Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, as rightly observed by learned Magistrate, it is evident that there existed civil dispute between the parties - As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, petitioner has neither pleaded nor shown any material in support of his requisition - As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, when petitioner had obtained a decree against respondents 1 and 2 as early as , there is no explanation as to why he had waited for four long years to request the respondents 1 and 2 to vacate premises - On perusal of petitioner's complaint, this Court is of the view that the commission of cognizable offence is not made out and no prima-facie case is shown - No doubt, learned Judicial Magistrate has passed a very brief and short order, but, the same cannot be considered as a reason or ground to impugn order and this Court is in entire agreement with finding recorded by learned Magistrate and there is nothing to interfere with dismissal order - Criminal Revision case is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam in Crl. M.P. No. 546 of 2017 on 19.01.2017, dismissing the petition filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
2. The revision petitioner has filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondents 1 to 3 alleging that the property situated in Door No. 236-A, North Malaiyadipatti, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, was purchased by one Chinna Petchiappan and his wife Sankarammal on 05.10.1987, that since both of them had no issues, they have executed a Will in favour of Chinna Petchiappan's elder brother's son/ Pitchiyappan, the petitioner herein on 09.08.2001, settling the said property in his favour; that the said Chinna Petchiappan and his wife Sankarammal had died on 01.09.2010 and 22.12.2009 respectively, that thereafter the petitioner has become the owner of the suit property and he is in enjoyment of the same, that the first accused claiming to be the adopted daughter of the said Chinna Petchiappan and Sankarammal, had created a joint settlement deed on 22.09.2010 in favour of her husband/second respondent, that the first respondent has then filed a suit in O.S. No. 388 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputur to declare herself as a legal heir of Chinna Petchiappan and Sankarammal against the Tahsildar, Rajapalayam Taluk, that the said suit was dismissed on 12.10.2011, that the petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S. No. 144 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputur to declare that the said property belongs to him and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and to declare that the settlement deed created by the respondents 1 and 2 on 22.09.2010 as null and void and also to declare the petitioner as the sole heir of the said Chinna Petchiappan and Sankarammal, that since the respondents 1 and 2 and the Tahsildar, Rajapalayam Taluk had remained ex-parte, the Court has passed a decree in favour of the petitioner on 10.02.2012, that the said decrees have attained finality, that on 13.11.2016 at about 06.00 p.m. the petitioner went to the respondents 1 and 2 and requested them to vacate the house, that the respondents 1 and 2 have abused the petitioner in filthy language and also attacked him with broom stick and threatened him to face dire consequences, that the petitioner was saved by Maniammal and Dhavamani, who were belonging to that street, that the petitioner has sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar on 17.11.2016 that the Sub- Inspector of Police attached to Rajapalayam North Police Station has received the complaint on 20.11.2016 and issued a receipt therefor, that the Police has neither registered the FIR nor conducted any investigation and that therefore, the petitioner was forced to file the above compliant, seeking a direction to the Rajapalayam North Police Station, to register FIR on his complaint, dated 17.11.2016, and proceed with the investigation.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, after receipt of the said petition, on hearing the petitioner's side and on perusal of the records, has passed the impugned order dated 19.01.2017, dismissing the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present criminal revision case.
4. Pending enquiry, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo stating that the petitioner does not want to pursue his case as against the third respondent and that the revision as against the third respondent may be dismissed. Recording the memo, the revision as against the third respondent is ordered to be dismissed.
5. Whether the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam in Crl. M.P. No. 546 of 2017 on 19.01.2017, is liable to be revised is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
