Rev.Fr.Iype P.Sam vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 6 February, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33153 of 2005(V)


1. REV.FR.IYPE P.SAM, VICAR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.M.MATHAI, MANNIL HOUSE,

                        Vs



1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KULANADA.

3. FR.K.E.ABRAHAM, MANNIRAKKAT HOUSE,

4. GEORGE THOMAS, THAYYIL HOUSE,

5. GEORGE THOMAS, POYIKAYIL HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :06/02/2008

 O R D E R
                              V. RAMKUMAR, J.

                            -------------------------------

                         W.P(C) No. 33153 OF 2005

                          -----------------------------------

                 Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008


                                   JUDGMENT

The two petitioners, namely, Rev. Fr.Ipe P.Sam and

P.M.Mathai seek a direction to dispose of MC No.12 of 1975 on

the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate Court,

Chengannoor initiated under Section 145 Cr.PC in respect of a

Christian church. They want the Executive Magistrate to dispose

of the M.C. in accordance with the subsisting orders of the Civil

Court. Both the petitioners do not figure either among the A party

or among the B party to Ext.P1 order. The petitioners would

contend that they are claiming under the “A party” in the

proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC. The question as to

whether the petitioners can represent either of the two parties

before the Executive Magistrate, cannot be decided in a writ

petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When

the parties before the Executive Magistrate and the Civil Court are

different, the Executive Magistrate cannot be directed to drop the

proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC

2. Admittedly, there are several proceedings with regard to

the church in question pending between the petitioners and other

WPC No. 33153 of 2005

2

private parties before the Civil Court on the trial side as well as

before the Civil Appellate Court. Hence, the petitioners cannot

steel a march over their rival factions in a manner otherwise than

according to law.

This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice

to the right of the petitioners to agitate their rights before the Civil

Court.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

btt

WPC No. 33153 of 2005

3