Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Raja - Appellant
Versus
The Executive Magistrate-cum- Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai & Others - Respondent
Cr.R.C. No. 960 of 2022
Decided On : 09-09-2022
Criminal Revision Case - Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - O.S.No.47 of 1997, O.S.No.163 of 2017, and O.S.No.25 of 2021 - [Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure] - The court discussed the application of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of pending civil suits and the jurisdiction of the civil court to pass orders of injunction. The judgment highlighted the principle that when a matter is pending before the civil court, only the civil court has the jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction, and parties cannot invoke the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also emphasized that the exercise of power after the institution of the civil suit was improper and allowed the Criminal Revision Case, setting aside the order of the first respondent and directing the parties to seek proper interim relief from the civil court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over joint family property, which was the subject of multiple civil suits, including O.S.No.47 of 1997, O.S.No.163 of 2017, and O.S.No.25 of 2021. The 'B' party challenged the order of the learned Divisional Magistrate, Arni, which prohibited them from entering the common properties in possession of the 'A' party until partition was effected, under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the exercise of power under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the institution of the civil suit was improper. It set aside the order of the first respondent and directed the parties to seek proper interim relief from the civil court.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity of the order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of pending civil suits and the jurisdiction of the civil court to pass orders of injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a matter is pending before the civil court, only the civil court has the jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction, and parties cannot invoke the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The exercise of power after the institution of the civil suit was deemed improper.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, setting aside the order of the first respondent and directing the parties to seek proper interim relief from the civil court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to allow the above Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the order, dated 24.07.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.207 of 2018 on the file of the Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Arni, 1st respondent herein.)
1.This Revision Case is filed by the 'B' party to the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of the learned Divisional Magistrate, Arni, dated 24.07.2018, in and by which, the learned Magistrate had ordered that until partition is effected in accordance with law, 'B' party should not enter the common properties which are in the possession of 'A' party and create a law and order situation and if 'B' party violates the said order, the criminal proceedings will be initiated.
2. A perusal of the material records produced on behalf of either side, the following facts emerged in this case:-
The property in question was originally a subject matter of O.S.No.47 of 1997, in which, a compromise decree was passed, whereby, the subject matter property was assigned to one Ravi and others belonging to the same family and that they are the joint owners of the property. Thereafter, by release deeds, dated 14.02.2014 and 20.06.2018, some of the shareholders have released their rights in favour of the third respondent, being the 'A' party, in the proceedings. A suit is also pending between the parties in respect of the same subject matter property in O.S.No.163 of 2017 before the District Munsif, Arni. Under the said circumstances, on the petition submitted by the 'A' party, proceedings were initiated and the order impugned in the Revision Case was passed on 24.07.2018.
3. However, the 'B' party had filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Arni and by an order, dated 24.09.2018, the Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tahsildar, Arni. Against the said order, though initially a Revision Case was filed before this Court by the respondents 3 and 4, they withdrew the Revision Case and filed a review petition before the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai challenging the order. However, thereafter, the third and fourth respondents once again filed Crl.R.C.No.1125 of 2019 before this Court and by an order, dated 18.08.2021, the said Revision Case is allowed holding that there is no objection of any appeal against the order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if at all, any party is aggrieved, the aggrieved party should only file a Revision Case before this Court. Therefore, by the said order, dated 18.08.2021, the order of the learned Taluk Magistrate, dated 24.07.2018 stood revived and therefore has observed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1125 of 2019, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the 'B' party. In the meanwhile, a suit for partition is also filed and is pending between the parties in O.S.No.25 of 2021 on the file of the Arni Additional District Court in respect of the subject matter property.
4. Heard Mr.V.Sanjevee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2; Mr.R.Kulandaivelu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4; M/s.Ajitha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6.
5. The primary contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even as on date of initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, O.S.No.163 of 2017 was pending on the file of the District Munsif, Arni. Any party who claims exclusive possession of the joint family property, ought to have moved the Civil Court for protecting the said possession and in the absence of any interim injunction, pending the suit, proceedings under Section 145 the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be the answer. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that initially, when the suit for i
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a matter is pending before the civil court, only the civil court has the jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction, and parties cannot ....
Injunction cannot be passed against a co-owner, and possession is crucial in resolving disputes under Section 145 of CrPC. Civil court decisions are binding on criminal court proceedings, and multipl....
The court emphasized that when civil litigation is pending for the property and possession is involved, parallel criminal proceedings should not be permitted. The decree of the civil court is binding....
Proceedings under Sections 145 Cr.P.C. are only in the interest of the maintenance of peace and not in the interest of the preservation of the rights of any party.
Property which in joint possession is outside ambit of Section 145 Cr.P.C. Magistrate cannot decide question of joint possession.
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
