Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Edappadi K. Palaniswamy, Interim General Secretary & Party Headquarters Secretary, All India Anna Dravita Munnetra Kazatam, Chennai & Another - Petitioners
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chennai & Others - Respondents
Crl. O.P. No. 16343, 16485, 16695 of 2022 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 9425, 9427, 9799, 9800 of 2022
Decided On : 20-07-2022
The Court quashed the impugned orders passed under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. by the Executive Magistrate, directing the police to hand over the possession of the AIADMK party headquarters building to the 'A' party and to provide round-the-clock protection to the building. The Court held that the Executive Magistrate failed to apply her mind and did not record reasons while passing the orders, and that the 'B' party's attempt to stall the General Council meeting and subsequent actions did not amount to a genuine dispute over the possession of the property.
Fact of the Case:
The 'A' party, represented by Edappadi K. Palanisamy, and the 'B' party, represented by O. Panneerselvam, were involved in a dispute over the leadership of the AIADMK party. The 'B' party challenged the General Council meeting called by the 'A' party, but the courts allowed the meeting to proceed. The 'B' party then attempted to enter the party headquarters building with his supporters, leading to violence and police intervention. The Executive Magistrate subsequently passed orders under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C., attaching the property and directing the police to provide protection.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Executive Magistrate failed to apply her mind and did not record reasons while passing the orders under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. The Court held that the 'B' party's attempt to stall the General Council meeting and subsequent actions did not amount to a genuine dispute over the possession of the property. The Court also noted that the 'A' party was in control of the party office prior to the incident and that the 'B' party had been expelled from the party.
Issues: 1. Whether the Executive Magistrate applied her mind and recorded reasons while passing the orders under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the 'B' party's attempt to stall the General Council meeting and subsequent actions amounted to a genuine dispute over the possession of the property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Executive Magistrate failed to apply her mind and did not record reasons while passing the orders under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. The Court noted that the Executive Magistrate's order was based solely on the FIR in a criminal case and that she did not consider any other evidence or submissions made by the parties. 2. The Court held that the 'B' party's attempt to stall the General Council meeting and subsequent actions did not amount to a genuine dispute over the possession of the property. The Court noted that the 'B' party had been expelled from the party and that the 'A' party was in control of the party office prior to the incident.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned orders passed under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. by the Executive Magistrate, directing the police to hand over the possession of the AIADMK party headquarters building to the 'A' party and to provide round-the-clock protection to the building.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.16343 of 2022: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent in R.C.No.B1/3269/2022 dated 11.07.2022 under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.
in Crl.O.P.No.16695 of 2022: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent in R.C.No.B1/3269/2022 dated 11.07.2022 under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.)
in Crl.O.P.No.16485 of 2022: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to cll for the records in RC.No.B1/3269/2022 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer (South)/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chennai and set aside the Proceedings and hand over the possession of the office building of AIADMK party situated at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,. Royapettah, Chennai 600014 to the Petitioner.)
1. a. Crl.O.P.No.16343 of 2022 has been filed to set aside the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in RC.No.B1/3269/2022 dated 11.07.2022 under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
1.b. Crl.O.P.No.16695 of 2002 has been filed to set aside the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in RC.No.B1/3269/2022 dated 11.07.2022 under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.
1.c. Crl.O.P.No.16485 of 2022 has been filed to set aside the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in RC.No.B1/3269/2022 dated 11.07.2022 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and to handover the possession of the office building of Anaithinthiya Anna Diravide Munnetra Kazhagam (hereinafter referred to as AIADMK) party, to the petitioner.
2. Crl.O.P.No.16343 of 2022 is filed by the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Mr. Edappadi K. Palanisamy, claiming to be an Interim General Secretary of the AIADMK party. He referred as 'A' Party in the RDO proceedings. Crl.O.P.No.16485 of 2022 filed by Mr. O. Panneer Selvam, he was also former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. He referred as 'B' Party. Since the disputes, issues, facts and circumstances involved in all the above three Crl.O.P.s are one and the same, all the three Crl.O.Ps are taken up for disposal by way of this Common Order.
3. The brief facts leading to filing these Crl.O.Ps as culled out from the petitions filed by 'A' party which are as follows: [The parties are referred herein as 'A' Party and 'B' Party, as referred in the impugned RDO Proceedings in RC.No.B1/3289/2022 dated 11.07.2022]
3.a It is the case of the 'A' Party that he is the Interim General Secretary of the AIADMK. The General Council of AIADMK has decided to make amendments, rules and regulations and wanted to have a single leadership, which was opposed by the 'B' party, who claimed dual leadership is the legitimate one. This lead to discussion and deliberation in the General Council Meeting held on 23.06.2022 and 11.07.2022. Challenging the General Council Meeting held on 23.06.2022, a supporter of 'B' Party one Mr. M. Shanmugam filed a suit in C.S.No.111 of 2022. The matter ultimately culminated into Apex Court. Honourable Apex Court permitted the General Council to go as per schedule fixed on 11.07.2022 as per law. Again 'B' Party has filed suit in C.S.No.118 of 2022 and O.A.No.368 of 2022 seeking for injunction restraining the conduct of the meeting on 11.07.2022. Learned single Judge has passed an order on 11.07.2022 9.00 a.m. rejecting the application. In the meanwhile, Mr. D. Jayakumar, Organising Secretary and Ex-Minister of AIADMK party given a representation on 08.07.2022 before the Chennai Police Commissioner for Police Protection at the party head quarters at Rayapettah, apprehending that there were attacks planned at the office headquarters when the General Council Meeting was supposed to take place. However, the police protection was not afforded and the police never acted on the complaint.
3.b It is further stated that due to the General Council held in a different place, the party headquarters was under lock and key and it was under the control of the Manager of the Party. When the matter stood thus on 11.07.2022 just before this Court pronounced the Order in O.A.368 of 2022 in C.S.N
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
