IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1334 of 2008() ----------------------------- M.C. NO. 101/2006 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ........................................... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/B PARTY: --------------------------------------------------- R. JAYAKUMAR, PRESIDENT, CHIRAKKARA MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE TRUST, KAIMANOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI. G. SURARSHAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/A PARTY: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M. GOPINATHAN NAIR, SUSHABHAVAN, PALACE ROAD, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI. D. SREEKUMAR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 1334 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner who was the B party in M.C. No. 101 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C challenges Annexure IX order passed by the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.R.P. No. 45 of 2006. The learned Sessions Judge has concluded by holding that the order which has been produced here as Annexure VII is a preliminary order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C and the order produced here as Annexure VIII is an attachment order passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C entrusting the property to the custody of a receiver. The property in question is the property of the Chirakkara Maha Vishnu Temple at Thiruvananthapuram. It has been clarified by CRL.M.C.NO. 1334/2008 : 2 : the learned Sessions Judge that Annexure IX revisional order passed by the Sessions Court shall not be a bar to the petitioner to submit his written statement and adduce evidence before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and seek variation of the orders passed in case such variation is warranted by such evidence. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has also been directed to expedite the disposal of the case after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their rival claims. Such being the position, I do not think that the order warrants any interference by this Court in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Leaving open the right of the parties to agitate their claims before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, this Crl.M.C is disposed of. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.M.C.NO. 1334/2008 : 3 :