Aathimoolan vs Surulivel Naicker and six Others

Bhaskaran, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in M.C. No. 125 of 1988 on the file of

the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti and quash the impugned order passed u/s 145(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure on 11-7-1988. This petition is filed on the ground that there is a civil dispute with regard to 2.30 acres out of 6.90 acres in survey No.

462, Chinnamanur village, Uthama-palayam taluk, Madurai district, that the civil suit is actually pending and that in disregard of the civil

proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order with respect to the same property as if there is breach of peace.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents pointed out that the present petition is clearly a misuse of the judicial process by suppression of facts and

making falsehoods. I find this is a vexatious petition filed repeatedly by the Petitioner after having failed in three successive petitions with regard to

the same proceedings. This time he has come forward with false allegations without referring to his earlier petitions. As rightly pointed out by the

learned Counsel for the Respondents, this is a gross misuse of the judicial process. Factually, the averment made in the petition as if the Civil Court

is seized of the matter, is incorrect. The Petitioner has filed some documents as if injunction is in his favour and he has been impleaded in the civil

suit. But, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, in a suit O.S. No. 85 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,

Periakulam by one Velammal, who is the 6th Respondent herein, against Respondents 1 to 5, though the Petitioner got himself impleaded as 6th

Defendant on the basis that he was a tenant under 6th Respondent? and also got an ex-parte order of interim injunction, the same was vacated

later, and the injunction petition was also dismissed. These facts the Petitioner has deliberately suppressed in his petition and has produced only

copy of the ex parte order and the application in which he was impleaded as a party-Defendant without disclosing that his petition for injunction

was later dismissed.

Respondents 1 to 5 herein initiated proceedings against Respondents 6 and 7 and the Petitioner herein before the Executive First Class

Magistrate/Sub-Collector, Periya-kulam in M.C. No. 7 of 1985. The Petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P. No. 685 of 1986 to quash the proceedings in

M.C. No. 7 of 1985 and R. Sengottuvelan, J., dismissed that petition on 7-2-1986 by elaborately considering all the contentions. This case is also

reported in Authimoolam v. A. Surulivel Naicker, 1986 L.W. (Crl.) 262. Thereafter, with respect to the same proceedings in M.C. No. 7 of

1985, without disclosing dismissal of earlier petition, the Petitioner the again filed Crl.M.P. No. 661 of 1987, which was also dismissed by G.

Maheswaran, J., by Order dated 25.3.1987. Not content with the dismissal of his earlier two petitions, the Petitioner filed a third petition in Crl.

M.P. No. 7323/87 and the same was also dismissed by Padmini Jesudurai, J., on 10-11-1987. In all the earlier proceedings, and also in the

present proceedings, the Petitioner appeared in person.

In the present petition, the Petitioner prays to quash the proceedings in M C. No. 125 of 1988 as if it is different from the one in M.C. No. 7 of

1985 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondents and as seen from the

records, the very same petition M.C. No. 7 of 1985 was subsequently re-numbered as M.C. No. 144 of 1986 and subsequently transferred to

Usilampatti and renumbered as M.C. No. 125 of 1988. This transfer itself was ordered by the Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai on the

allegation made by the Petitioner against the Execution Magistrate/Sub Collector, Periakulam. Suppressing the fact that M.C. No. 125 of 1988

pending on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti is none other than the petition which was pending before the Sub Collector,

Periyakulam as M.C. No. 7 of 1985, the present petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the allegation that the Civil Court is seized of

the matter and that therefore the Executive Magistrate has no power to pass an order u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relying on the

decision reported in Ram Sumar Puri Mahant v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 S.C. 2472. But, as already pointed out, the Civil Court has

negatived his contention and dismissed his injunction petition and on the apprehension that there is likelihood of breach of peace, the Executive

Magistrate issued the impugned notice to the parties concerned to appear before him on a specified date. It is also pointed out that actually

evidence was also recorded and the Petitioner did participate in the proceedings. When confronted with this fact, the Petitioner had to admit that

he was forced to give evidence in the proceedings. Therefore it is clear that the Petitioner has successively filed four petitions on the same cause of

action after the dismissal of each of the petitions. This is clearly an act of the Petitioner to mislead the Court by deliberate suppression of facts. The

Petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

Further, this act of the Petitioner is clearly misuse of the judicial proceedings and as such, this is a fit case where I feel, as held in the decision

reported in Hastings Mill Limited v. Hira Singh, 1978 Cri. L.J. 560, that the Petitioner should be restrained from initiating any similar proceedings

against the Respondents without first obtaining the leave of Court.

In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with a direction that there will be injunction against the Petitioner from initiating any similar

proceedings in this Court against the Respondents without first obtaining the leave from this Court. The Executive Magistrate/Revenue Divisional

Officer, Usilampatti is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.