SHANTHA Vs. TAHSILDAR & EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, who is A party in Section 145 Cr.P.C proceedings, has come forward with this Criminal revision to set aside the order dated 25.7.2013 passed by the first respondent Tahsildar -cum -Executive Magistrate, Mylapore -Triplicane, Chennai -28.

(2.) THE proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C arose out of the complaint and FIR in Cr.No.1290/2012 dated 12.12.2012 registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, E4 Abhiramapuram Police Station, Chennai against the petitioner herein as A party and the second respondent herein as B party. The present complaint is the continuation of the complaint and FIR in Cr.No.1289/2012 dated 12.12.2012 registered on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner herein, who is A party in FIR in Crime No.1290/2012. The complaint and FIR in Crime No.1289/2012 proceeds as if one Thirupathi and others trespassed into her house bearing Door No.11, Shriram Colony, Abhiramapuram, Chennai in the absence of inmates, by breaking open the lock and attempted to put up shed at the backyard of the house. Whereas, the complaint and FIR in Crime No.1290/2012 refers to few more complaints by rival claimants in respect of the same property and the nature of the dispute between the parties, explained in detail. It also refers to the proceedings in OP.No.68/2009 in respect of the Will purportedly executed by the original owner Ramamoorthy etc. On the basis of the complaints so received, more than one FIR was registered in the respect of the same property. In pursuance of the registration of more than one complaints in respect of the same property, the Sub Inspector of Police thought it fit to refer the same to Tahsildar to initiate proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the same, the second respondent herein also filed OS.No.7796/2012 on the file of V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai against the petitioner herein and her daughter for the relief of injunction. On receipt of the complaint from the Inspector of Police, E4 Police Station, Abhiramapuram, Chennai, the first respondent initiated section 145 Cr.P.C proceedings and sent notice to the parties for enquiry. The same was replied by the petitioner herein through legal notice, which states that A party is the absolute owner and in possession of entire property and the complaint lodged by B party before Land Grabbing Cell was closed as the issue involved is civil in nature and B party having approached the civil court, the proceeding under section 145Cr.P.C shall be closed, as the right of the parties can be determined only by the competent civil court. In spite of the same, the first respondent has passed the order, thereby deciding the title in respect of the property in question in favour of the second respondent on the basis of the Will dated 31.7.2009 which was probated in OP.No.68/2009. Aggrieved by the same, A party is now before this court by way of the present criminal revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously questioned the propriety of the first respondent Tahsildar -cum -Executive Magistrate in passing the impugned order and validity of one such order mainly on the ground that the first respondent exceeded its jurisdiction in proceeding with section 145 Cr.P.C proceeding pending civil suit for adjudication of the right of the parties and passed the impugned order, without recording his subjective satisfaction regarding breach of peace and dispute based on the police report and rendered his finding regarding title without any jurisdiction.