MEENATCHIAMMAL Vs. SANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been arrayed as 'A' Party in C.M.P. No. 6 of 2007 initiated under Section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners are the tenants of the Temple. Alleging interference at the hands of the private respondents before this Court, a suit was filed on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam, in O.S. No. 42 of 2007 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The Temple also filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the private respondents herein in O.S. No. 61 of 2007, pending on the file of the Sub Court, Vridhachalam. The petitioners gave the complaint, which has been registered as crime No. 112 of 2007, against the private respondents for the alleged offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C. apart from other offences. Another complaint was given in crime No. 119 of 2007 by the petitioners against the private respondents. The jurisdictional police officer referred the complaint under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the learned Executive Magistrate, Vridhachalam. After issuing notice to both sides, the learned Executive Magistrate passed an order restraining the petitioners from interfering with the possession of the private respondents herein. Challenging the same, the present criminal original petition has been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the order passed is one without power, authority and jurisdiction. What is required under Section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is the satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate for initiating action. However, he has passed an interim order contrary to the provisions contained under Section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Admittedly, there are civil suits pending. One civil suit is between the parties herein and the other is also on the very same issue between the landlord of the petitioners and the private respondents. At the time of the passing the order, there was an interim injunction granted by the civil Court in I.A. No. 20 of 2007 in O.S. No. 61 of 2007 against the private respondents. The learned Executive Magistrate has exceeded his power in giving a finding on title, which is impermissible in law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the suit filed in O.S. No. 61 of 2007 is not between the parties. In the suit filed by the petitioners, there is no order of injunction pending. The injunction granted in O.S. No. 61 of 2007 was set aside on 12.2.2008 in C.R.P. No. 2460 of 2007. The learned Executive Magistrate considered the documents available as well as the statements made by the parties for arriving at the conclusion. Therefore, no interference is required.