GNANATHIRAVIYAM GNANADURAI Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi in M.C.No.30 of 2008.

(2.) THE gist of the petition filed by the petitioner would run as follows: THE petitioner purchased an extent of 8497.5 sq.ft site in Survey No.1196/1B/1 of Valliyoor Village together with building in Door Nos.301 and 302 in full and portion of Door No.303 by virtue of the sale deeds dated 31.05.2004 and 30.06.2004 and the revenue records were also mutated in the name of the petitioner. When the petitioner had made arrangement in the second week of April 2008 for repairing the buildings, the respondents 2 and 3 created problem and hence a police complaint was lodged. In the meanwhile, the petitioner received a communication from the fourth respondent purporting under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., which contains no particulars or grounds on which 145(1) Cr.P.C. proceedings came to be invoked. When he approached the fourth respondent, it seems that the first respondent had registered an F.I.R. under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., which he has no power and neither Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. can be stated as a substantial offence and without adverting to the fact that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to register the F.I.R. under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. and the order purported to be issued by the fourth respondent taking cognizance through that F.I.R. also suffers from the application of mind. Hence, the petitioner prays to quash the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi in M.C.No.30 of 2008.

(3.) HE would also submit that the fourth respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute, which is of civil in nature and he has no jurisdiction to decide the title of any person regarding the disputed property, which is the subject matter of the proceedings. Moreover, he would submit that the fourth respondent cannot go into the question of title and he cannot also pass any order against the revenue records issued in favour of the petitioner. HE would further submit that the fourth respondent ought not to have taken cognizance of the case and therefore the said proceedings has to be quashed.