RAHIMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.3 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) PETITIONER preferred a complaint to respondent No.2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur purportedly under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") alleging that an alleged public way which was being lawfully used by the public has been obstructed by respondent No.3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate took the complaint on file as M.C.No.222 of 2010 and issued Ext.P2, conditional order dated 03.08.2010 directing respondent No.3 to remove the alleged obstruction or show cause why the order shall not be made absolute. Later the Sub Divisional Magistrate appears to have conducted some enquiry purportedly under Section 137 of the Code and dropped the proceeding observing that what is involved is a private dispute. PETITIONER has challenged that order before the learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2011 and moved Ext.P6, Crl.M.P.No.888 of 2011 for interim order restraining respondent No.3 from making obstruction to the disputed pathway until disposal of the revision petition. On that petition learned Sessions Judge ordered notice. PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking interim relief as above stated until disposal of the revision petition.