SADASIVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is B party No.1 in M.C.No.72 of 2006 pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The said proceedings have been initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Order dated 28/03/2004, appointing a receiver has been passed, it is evident from Ext.P4. The petitioner has come to this court, challenging Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner B party No.1 and A party have been heard. The dispute is about administration and possession of a temple by name Karette Kuzhuvila Subrahmanya Temple. There is a dispute between A and B parties about possession and right to administer the said temple. On the report received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate from the Sub Inspector of Police, Kilimanoor police station, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was satisfied that threat to the law and order situation prevails consequent to the dispute over the ownership of the said temple. It is accordingly that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed the relevant order under Section 145 Cr.P.C (a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3 dated 03/03/2006). Though the subsequent order passed under Section 146 Cr.P.C dated 28/03/2006 has not been produced and no specific challenge is mounted against that order, it is evident from Ext.P4 that in pursuance of that order, the Additional Tahsildar of Chirayinkeezhu taluk is appointed as receiver. It is further evident from Ext.P5 that the said receiver had taken charge as per the mahazer (copy of which is produced as Ext.P5 dated 06/05/2006).

(3.) The petitioner challenges the initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. There are civil disputes pending between the parties in respect of possession and right to administer the temple, it is submitted. There is no contention before me that any interim arrangement as to possession has been made by the civil courts in any of the pending proceedings. In these circumstances, resort to the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C by the Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or improper. No interim arrangement as to possession having been made by the civil courts and the Sub Divisional/Executive Magistrate having perceived imminent threat to the law and order situation, it cannot be held that the invocation of powers under Section 146 Cr.P.C to appoint a receiver is not justified.