Narayanasamy v. Rajaram Reddiar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 14.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.R.C.No.754 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.8657 of 2018

1. Narayanasamy

2. A.Ramadoss

3. S.Muthukumaran

4. R.Ramesh

5. R.Giri

6. Tamilarasan

7. R.Krishnamurthy

8. K.Sundararajan

...Petitioners

-Vs1. Rajaram Reddiyar

2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

...Respondents

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram in Na.Ka.No.A3/2173/2015 dated 30.03.2018. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajasekaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Vediappan for R1 Mr.R.Ravichandran Govt. Advocate (Crl. side) for R2

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram in Na.Ka.No.A3/2173/2015, dated 30.03.2018.

2. The respondent filed a petition before the second respondent namely the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District vide Na.Ka.No.A3/2173/2015, dated 30.03.2018 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioners. The second respondent, after hearing the arguments and conclude the proceedings, the learned Magistrate directed the revision petitioners herein should not interfere with the first respondent's possession and they shall approach the Civil Court and established their

rights. As against the order of the learned Magistrate, the revision petitioners have filed the present revision before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the revision petitioners have submitted all the related documents and the second respondent has not considered the documents. The petitioners have submitted valuable documents and also proved their possession. However, the second respondent failed to consider these aspect and simply directed the petitioners not to interfere with the possession of the first respondent.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) for the second respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

5. Admittedly, during the pendency of the civil proceedings, the revision petitioners produced the related documents. However, the second respondent have not stated anything about the documents title and ownership. Based on the records, he found that the first respondent was in a possession and directed the revision petitioners not to interfere with his possession and gave liberty to approach the Civil Court to establish their rights and title.

6. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by the second respondent viz., Sub Divisional Magistrate, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District and finds there is no merit in the revision.

7. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar rli

To

1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1 cc to Mr.V.Balamurugan Advocate sr24279 Crl.R.C.No.754 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.8657 of 2018 aa09/12/2019