High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-01-02Closed

Shijil S/o Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRRP.No.2975 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Bhavadasan
Judgment Date: 2012-01-02
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is closed. The Sub Divisional Magistrate’s order holding A party entitled to possession is noted but the court clarifies that even if possession is held, it cannot prevent the public from entering and worshipping the temple while the civil suit is pending. The court reserves the public’s right to enter and worship and leaves the determination of the temple’s public/private status to the civil proceedings.
Final Disposition: Closed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shijil S/o Prabhakaran, Valiyaveettil Maranchery, Vadamakku P.O., Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District

Respondents

Chandran Vaidyer, S/o. Arumughan, Kanakkoot House, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Vijayan, S/o. Chandran Vaidyer, Kanakkoot House, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Jayesh, S/o. Chandran Vaidyer, Kanakkoot House, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Lakshmanan, S/o. Kumaran Chakkalakkal, Chakkalakkal House, Maranchery, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Sunil, S/o. Kumaran Chakkalakkal, Chakkalakkal House, Maranchery Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Suran, S/o. Kunhumen Pottath, Pottath House, Maranchery, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Anil Kumar, S/o. AppuAnthaprambil Anthaparambil House, Maranchery, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Devan P.M, S/o. Kunhunni Pattamadathil Pattamadathil House, Maranchery, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Mohan, S/o. Kumaran Patarumadathil, Pattarumadathil House, Maranchery, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Shanos, S/o. Thuppunni, Kaliyath House, Maranchery, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Shaji P.M, S/o. Achrani Pattarumadathil Pattarumadathil House, Maranchery, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Binesh T.K, S/o. Kumaran, Thekkekkara House, Parampadu, Purangu (P.O.), 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Shanmughan, S/o. Kunhunni Pattarumadathil Pattarumadathil House, Maranchery, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
Chandran, S/o. Nanu Pattarumadathil Pattarumadathil House, Maranchery, Vadamakku P.O., 679 577, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District
State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Cochin 31

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Jamsheed Hafiz

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Safir C. Krishnan
• Sri T.R. Rajesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal revision petition (CRRP No. 2975 of 2011) filed before the Kerala High Court challenging an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The matter concerns a temple, with A (Shijil) contending the temple is private while B disputes it is public and asserts the right of entry to worship is at issue. The Magistrate’s 16.03.2011 order held that A party was entitled to possession of the property; the B party sought to reopen the issue under challenge and the revision petition questioned the legality of the order, arguing that it decided civil rights beyond the scope of Section 145 Cr.P.C. The State, represented by counsel, argued that the order should not have adverse civil consequences and that the rights of the public are not automatically affected. The High Court observed that although the suit pending seeks a declaration that the temple is public, the question of whether the temple is private or public must be determined by the civil court. It noted that possession to A does not permit exclusion of the public from worship while the civil suit is pending, ordering that public access be reserved. Ultimately, the revision petition is closed, with the court reserving the public’s right to enter and worship, and leaving the civil determination of temple status to the appropriate proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 145 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the Sub Divisional Magistrate’s order 16.03.2011 deciding that the A party is entitled to possession was beyond the scope of Section 145 Cr.P.C., and that the civil suit pending seeks a declaration that the temple is public. Reliance was placed on Kamla v. Bhanwarlal (AIR 1985 SC 473) and Jhunamal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1988 SC 1973). The petitioner argues that proclamation of possession should not preclude the public from entering the temple, given the civil suit’s ongoing nature.

Contentions of Respondents

The State’s counsel submitted that the impugned order has no adverse civil consequences and that the Magistrate only noted possession based on materials; the rights of the public to worship are not affected by the order so long as the civil suit is pending. The main civil question of whether the temple is public or private is to be determined by the civil court, and the order does not bar worship pending the suit.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kamla v. Bhanwarlal	AIR 1985 SC 473	Mentioned Only	Cited by counsel; not expressly adopted or distinguished in the court's fresh reasoning.
Jhunamal v. State of Madhya Pradesh	AIR 1988 SC 1973	Mentioned Only	Cited by counsel; the court did not apply or distinguish it in its principal reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Shijil S/o Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2012/12TH POUSHA 1933** ## **CRRP.No. 2975 of 2011 ( )** **=================** **(MC.26/2010 of SUB.DVL.MAGI.COURT, TIRUR)** **------------** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT (B.PARTY 3) ============================** ## **1 .SHIJIL,S/O.PRABHAKRAN,VALIYAVEETTIL MARANCHERY, VADAMUKKU P.O PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV.SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ** **RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/B. PARTY 1, 2 & 4 TO 12/STATE =========================================** **1. CHANDRAN VAIDYER,S/O.ARUMUGHAN, KANAKKOOTT HOUSE, VADAMUKKU P.O** **PIN 679 577, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. VIJAYAN,S/O.CHANDRAN VAIDYER, KANAKKOOTT HOUSE, VADAMUKKU P.O PIN 679 577, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. JAYESH,S/O.CHANDRAN VAIDYER, KANAKKOOTT HOUSE, VADAMUKKU P.O PIN 679 577, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **4 . LAKSHMANAN,S/O.KUMARAN CHAKKALAKKAL, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, MARANCHERY VADAMUKKU P.O. PIN 679 577, PONNANI TALU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **5 . SUNIL,S/O.KUMARAN CHAKKALAKKAL, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, MARANCHERY VADAMUKKU P.O, PIN 679 577 PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **VK** ## **CRRP.No. 2975 of 2011 ( )** **---------------------------------** - **6 . SURAN,S/O.KUNHUMON POTTATH, POTTATH HOUSE, MARANCHERY, VADAMUKKU P.O, PIN 679 577 PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **7. ANIL KUMAR,S/O.APPU ANTHAPRAMBIL ANTHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARANCHERY VADAMUKKU P.O, PIN 679 577 PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **8 . DEVAN P.M,S/O.KUNHUNNI PATTAMADATHIL PATTAMADATHIL HOUSE, MARANCHERY VADAMUKKU P.O, PIN 679 577, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **9. MOHAN,S/O.KUMARAN PATARUMADATHIL, PATTARUMADATHIL HOUSE, MARANCHERY VADAMUKKU P.O, PIN 679 577 PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **10 . SHANOS,S/O.THUPPUNNI,KALIYATH HOUSE, MARANCHERY, VADAMUKKU P.O, PIN 679 577 PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **11. SHAJI P.M,S/O.ACHRANI PATTARUMADATHIL PATTARUMADATHIL HOUSE, MARANCHERY VADAMUKKU P.O, PIN 679 577, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **12. BINEESH T.K,S/O.KUMARAN, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE PARAMPADU, PURANGU (P.O), PIN 679 577 PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **13 . SHANMUGHAN,S/O.KUNHUNNI PATTARUMADATHIL PATTARUMADATHIL HOUSE, MARANCHERY, VADAMUKKU P.O, PIN 679 577, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **VK** **CRRP.No. 2975 of 2011 ( ) ---------------------------------** **14. CHANDRAN,S/O.NANU PATTARUMADATHIL PATTARUMADATHIL HOUSE, MARANCHERY VADAMUKKU P.O, PIN 679 577, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **15 . STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,COCHIN 31.** **BY ADV. SRI. SAFIR C. KRISHNAN R15 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJESH** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** ## **P.BHAVADASAN, J.** ------------------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.2975 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of January 2012 ## Order This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.11.2011 whereby the Sub Divisional Magistrate refused to re-open the issue concluded by him as per order dated 16.03.2011. It appears that the A Party before the learned Magistrate contended that the temple is a private temple whereas the B Party says that it is a public temple. B Party also has a case that the A Party has no right to enter the temple premises. From the records now made available, it is seen that even though notice was issued to B Party, they did not choose to file any statement or make any appearance before this court. Whatever that be, the learned Magistrate has passed an order on 16.3.2011 whereby, it is held that A Party is entitled to be in possession for the reasons made mention of in the said Order. It is after perusing the records Crl.R.P.No.2975/11 2 produced by the officers concerned that the said order has been passed. B party filed a petition seeking to have the matter re-opened. The learned Magistrate did not find any reason to re-open the matter and confirmed the order already passed by him. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that it has decided the rights of the parties which is not covered by the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel pointed out that a civil suit for a declaration that the temple is a public temple is pending. He relied on the decisions in **Kamla v. Bhanwarlal** (AIR 1985 SC 473) and **Jhunamal v. State of Madhya Pradesh** (AIR 1988 SC 1973). The learned counsel also pointed out that by the present order passed by the learned Magistrate, the public of the locality who have filed the suit seeking a declaration, are precluded from entering and worshiping in the temple. Crl.R.P.No.2975/11 3 3. The impugned order cannot have any legal consequences, so says the learned counsel for the respondent. He also pointed out that the learned Magistrate has only pointed out that A party produced certain materials to show that the property is standing in their name and they are entitled to possession. It is also pointed out that none of the rights of the public as agitated in the suit is affected by the impugned order. 4. After having heard the learned counsel on both sides and going through the records, the apprehension voiced by the revision petitioner seems to be that under the guise of the present order, the public may be prevented from entering and worshiping in the temple. 5. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has said on the materials available that A Party is entitled to possession of the property. From the records, it is seen that the suit is for a declaration that the temple is a public temple. The issue as to whether the temple is a public temple or private temple is a matter to be decided by the Crl.R.P.No.2975/11 4 civil court. Even assuming that A party is entitled to possession, that does not mean that it can prevent the public from carrying on worship in the temple so long as the suit is pending. So, reserving the right of the public to enter and worship in the temple and also to obtain appropriate orders from appropriate authority, the revision petition is closed. **P.Bhavadasan, Judge** sta Crl.R.P.No.2975/11 5