Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.N.Sathish Kumar, J
R.Kamaraj – Appellant
Versus
Rajavadivelan – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.22523 of 2025 | Crl.M.P.No.15417 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.V.Rahul
For the Respondents: Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy, Mr.M.Thamizhmani
Easementary rights must be determined in civil court, not through criminal proceedings under Section 147 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:This judgment assesses a petition challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, contending the misuse of easementary rights under the BNSS Act and Criminal Procedure Code. Key findings assert that such rights necessitate adjudication in civil court, not in a criminal procedural context. The court frames the issue as centered upon proper evidence evaluation of the rights in question. The ruling ultimately dismisses the petition, directing claimants to seek resolution in civil proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges a prior decision regarding easement rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. rights on usage of pathway require civil evidence. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
Challenging the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal passed under Section 147 Cr.P.C., the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,/Section 528 of BNSS Act , 2023.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record.
3. Having suffered the order under Section 147 Cr.P.C before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal and thereafter, having suffered order under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.,Revisional jurisdiction, before the Sessions Court, Puducherry, once again, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., / Section 528 of BNSS, Act.
4. The very issue between parties before the Sub Divisional Magistrate is with regard to the easmentary right and usage of the pathway. However, the petitioner is not in a position to succeed his claim and the learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and dismissed the claim of the petitioner. The entire allegation on both sides is with regard to the usage of pathway and claiming easmentary right.
5. In such view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Revisional Court, with regard to the rights of the parties will not have any binding. The right with regard to the easmentary right and usage of pathway can be decided only on proper evidence before the civil court and not by way of proceedings under Section 147 of Cr.P.C., and it is not recorded in the findings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate as to who was in possession and whether there was any disturbance. Therefore beyond the scope of proceedings under of Cr.P.C.,, rights have been decided by the Sub Divisional officer.
