R. THIAGARAJAN Vs. K. ANGAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.RC. No. 5 of 1996.

(2.) CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 5 of 1996 has been filed by A party/petitioner against the proceedings initiated in M.C. No. 5 of 1995, on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode in which both parties, viz., A and B were directed to attend his office on 27 -12 -1995 at 5.00 P.M. A party -Petitioner states that the property is comprised in old Door No. 15, new door No. 25, Ottukkare Chinnaya Counder Street, Erode. There is a dispute between A and B parties, with reference to which both parties have filed a complaint.

(3.) TO -day in Criminal Revision Case No. 5 of 1996, I have considered the validity and legality of the proceedings impugned in the case viz., M.C. No. 5 of 1995, dated 24.12.1995 and I have come to the conclusion that it is illegal, as the relevant mandatory against each other Both cases have been registered by the Police in Crime Nos. 1023 of 1995 and 82 of 1995. in the mean time, the Petitioner has received a summon purported to be issued under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M.C. No. 5 of 1995 -A3, dated 24 -12 -1995 from the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode. The said order directing the parties to attend to office for an enquiry under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sought to be challenged on the simple ground that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate did not comply with the mandatory provisions as contemplated under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as per the dictum laid down by this Court. While invoking the provisions of Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has to pass a preliminary order under the said section and then fix the enquiry. According to learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner, the impugned order dated 24 -12 -1995 purported to have been passed under Section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure code does not fulfill the conditions as contemplated under the said section. According to Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure there must be grounds of satisfaction expressed in clear and unequivocal terms in the order, intimating the rival parties that there is a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace. A careful perusal of the impugned order does not show the grounds of satisfaction.