The jurisdiction of Criminal Courts is limited to temporary orders under Cr.PC, not extending to civil rights disputes over easements.

O R D E R

Annexures-A4 & A5 orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Thalassery, in purported exercise of the powers under Sections 133 (1) & 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.PC’) are under challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC by the counter petitioner in the said proceedings. Now, the petitioner herein is no more, and the additional petitioners 2 to 4 are impleaded as his legal representatives.

2. The issue involved in this case relates to a natural drainage channel which was said to have been existing through the landed property of the petitioner near Sreeparvathy Parameswara Temple, Pinarayi, Kannur. The aforesaid water channel was said to be the drainage outlet of excess water from the pond of the aforesaid temple. Alleging that the petitioner had filled and obliterated the above water channel and caused obstruction to the free flow of water from the temple pond, the first respondent, who claims to be the priest of that temple, approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery, with Annexure-A2 complaint for restoration of the said water channel. Before that, the first respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.19680/2014 for Police protection to remove the obstruction caused to the free flow of water through the above canal, which was said to be in existence through the landed property of the petitioner. By the judgment rendered on 17.10.2014, it was observed by this Court that no such direction as sought for was required to be issued in that case. However, it was made clear in the said judgment that the petitioner could approach the RDO in the event of any nuisance, and that if any such petition is filed, the RDO shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. It is thereafter that the petitioner filed Annexure-A2 complaint before the Sub Division Magistrate (RDO), Thalassery. According to the petitioner, the first respondent and certain others attempted to cut open a new water channel through his land on 14.07.2014, against which the petitioner’s wife complained before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery, leading to the registration of Crime No.716/2014 by the Dharmadam Police against the first respondent and the other accused for the commission of offences under Sections 427, 447 & 506(i) r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

3. By Annexure-A4 order, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the petitioner herein to remove the obstructions in the water channel which existed through the property and to restore the water channel to its prior position within 10 days, or to appear before the said authority and to show cause why that order should not be made absolute. Thereafter, on 31.01.2018, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the final order under Section 138 Cr.PC (Annexure-A5) making Annexure-A4 conditional order absolute. The aforesaid orders are under challenge in this petition filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. As already stated above, the issue involved in this case relates to the right of the authorities of Sreeparvathy Parameswara Temple, Pinarayi, to use a natural drainage channel which was said to have been in existence in the landed property of the petitioner to drain out the excess water from the temple pond. The fact that the landed property where the aforesaid drainage channel was said to have been in existence, is the absolute private property of the petitioner, is not in dispute. There is no case for the first respondent that the water channel which was said to be in existence in the property of the petitioner has be