DAYALAN RAJES Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION Cases against the order in Na.Ka.No,3482/2008 (A2) dated 30.10.2008 and in Na.Ka. No,3718/2007 (A2) dated 13.07.2007, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Salem. Challenging the final order, dated 13.7.2007, passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in Na.Ka. No,3718 /2007 (A2) by the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Salem, the petitioners have filed Crl.R.C. No.1637 of 2008. Questioning the correctness and validity of the subsequent order dated 30.10.2008 passed by the said authority in Na.Ka.No,3482/2008 (A2), in and by which several directions came to be issued, Crl.R.C. No.1527 of 2008 is preferred.

(2.) INASMUCH as both the Revision Cases are interconnected and stemming from the orders passed by the very same authority viz., first respondent, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the petitioners have trespassed into the property, destroyed the pipelines, prevented flow of water to the estate of the 2nd respondent and threatened the labourers, resulting in lodging of the complaint. Further, though compromise has been reached and a memorandum of understanding entered into and signed between the parties, ignoring such compromise, the petitioners continuously created problems, resulting in law and order problem and breach of peace only under such circumstances, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. came to be initiated. Though sufficient opportunity was given during preliminary enquiry conducted under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C., the petitioners failed to appear and did not take up the proceedings therefore, orders came to be passed in their absence. Also, in spite of such order having been passed, the same was not implemented by the first respondent and that is the reason why, the Writ Petition was filed before the High court. The writ petition was ordered and only subsequent thereto, the first respondent passed further orders issuing certain directions to the authorities. The dispute arose from sharing of water from common source, hence, such dispute can very well be enquired by the first respondent under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Inasmuch as sufficient reasons are assigned for issuing the directions, the orders need not be disturbed and the Revision Cases may be dismissed.