(1.) S Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in M.C.No.42/2013, the proceedings initiated, invoking jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner is the C -party, one of the aggrieved parties against whom the impugned order has been passed. The proceedings were initiated on the report dated 31.3.2013 of the Asst. Commissioner of Police (Cantonment), Thiruvananthapuram City, stating that there exists a dispute between A -party and B -party, which are the two groups of the Kerala Naduvathul Mujahideen (KNM), the revision petitioner herein, concerning the management and possession of "Salafi Centre, Oottukuzhi, Thiruvananthapuram" and the dispute is likely to cause breach of peace and thereby create a law and order problem. When his attempt to make an amicable settlement got failed, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a composite order under Section 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C., attaching and taking possession of the subject of dispute, and appointed a Receiver for the management of the same.
(2.) THE revision petitioner/C -party was not a party in that proceedings. But, the said order was challenged before this Court in Crl.R.P.No.911/2013 by the revision petitioner/C -party and in Crl.R.P.No.883/2013 by the A - party. This Court, by a common order dated 31.7.2013, set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, on a finding that the composite order passed under both Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. is vitiated by procedural irregularity, and remitted the case to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass order afresh after conducting due enquiry as contemplated under Section 145(4) of the Cr.P.C.
(3.) AFTER remand, all the parties adduced both oral and documentary evidence consist of Exts.A1 to A17 produced by the A -party, Exts.C1 to C34 produced by the C -party and Exts.B1 to B9 produced by the B -party and the oral evidence given by the witnesses.