THANKAMMA Vs. RAJALAKSHMI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is filed against the order dated 20/08/2008 in Crl. R. P. No. 175/2004 on the files of the Sessions Court, Palakkad by which the order in M. P. No. 8/2002 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Ottappalam was set aside. The facts relevant for consideration of this revision petition is as follows: The revision petitioner filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ottappalam under S.133(1) of Crimial P.C. The allegation was that the first respondent herein has obstructed a pathway commencing from a public road which led to the house of the first respondent herein and the neighbours nearby. A report was called from the Village Officer, Shornur I and the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a conditional order under S.133(1) of Crimial P.C. directing to remove the obstruction within seven days or to show cause as to why the order should not be made absolute. In pursuance of the said notice, the first respondent herein appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and denied the allegation. Seeing that the denial is not sufficient ordered an enquiry under S.138 of Crimial P.C.

(2.) The first respondent herein challenged the same before the Sessions Court by filing a revision as Crl. R. P. No. 175/2004. The said revision was allowed by the Sessions Court by its order dated 20/08/2008, wherein the Court set aside the impugned order dated 06/11/2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ottappalam which was passed under S.137(1) of Crimial P.C. The said order is under challenge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted before me that apart from the facts, it is also to be considered that a revision petition will not lie against an order under S.137(1) of Crimial P.C. to continue the proceeding. It is an interlocutory order, against which a revision will not lie. The learned counsel for the respondent herein submitted before me that when an illegality was seen committed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the lower revisional Court only corrected the same. Though there was an earlier proceeding before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, wherein it was found by the Magistrate that the dispute is of civil nature and accordingly, the matter has been closed. It is the submission that now it is only revival of the same dispute when the presiding officer changed.