ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the proceedings in Na.Ka.1224/2020/A1 dated 29.09.2020 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner herein lodged a complaint dated 02.06.2020 before the second respondent Police against the respondents 3 to 5, which was assigned as C.S.R.No.182 of 2020. On coming to know about the same, in order to circumvent the criminal prosecution, the third respondent herein had lodged a complaint, which was assigned as C.S.R.No.183 of 2020. Subsequently, the second respondent Police conducted an enquiry and advised the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. However, the respondents 3 to 5 again started to dispose the movables in the said properties, the first petitioner again lodged a complaint dated 21.06.2020, which was assigned as C.S.R.No.200 of 2020 and the second respondent warned the respondents 3 to 5 to refrain from their illegal activities. However, they refused to refrain from their activities, hence, the second respondent Police registered the First Information Report in Crime No.667 of 2020 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C and forwarded a copy of the F.I.R to the first respondent for further proceedings.

3. In pursuant to the registration of the F.I.R, the Tahsildar, Poonamallee has conducted an enquiry on 08.09.2020. Based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the first respondent herein without following the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C passed an impugned order dated 29.09.2020 in Na.Ka.No.1224/2020/A1, without application of mind by determining the rights unilaterally in favour of the respondents 3 to 5. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioners are before this Court with the present Criminal Revision Case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first respondent has failed to consider the fact that Civil Suit in O.S.No.266 of 2019 is pending between the parties before the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee and passed the impugned order. He would further submit that as per Section 145 Cr.P.C., the Executive Magistrate/the first respondent herein has to satisfy from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water, should make an order in writing upon satisfied and require the parties to attend the Court and to put in written statements of their respective claims with regard to the dispute. However, in the present case, the first respondent without following the procedures as prescribed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. passed the impugned order and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s.Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported in 2011 (273) ELT 345 (SC), wherein formulated certain principles to be followed by the quasi-judicial authority with regard to recording of reasons in support of its conclusion while passing an order. However, the same was not followed in the present case.

6. In the case of R. Thiagarajan V. K. Angamuthu reported in 1996 (2) L.W.(Crl.) 615, this Court held as follows :

''the enquiry under Section 145 Cr.P.C should be initiated only when the mandatory provisions of Section 145(1) Cr.P.C has been complied with by passing a preliminary order giving out all the necessary details and reflecting the grounds of satisfaction arrived at by the Magistrate, otherwise the entire proceedings would be illegal.''

However, the first respondent without satisfying herself with regard to actual dispute and not discussing anything about the possibility of the breach of peace and even without passing of the preliminary order has passed the impugned order by unilaterally determining the rights in favour of the respondents 3 to 5, which is per se illegal. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned