Skip to content


Vempati Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. R. Krishna Iyer Alias Krishna Rao and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Case No. 409 of 1948 and Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 378 of 1948
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Mad593
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 144 and 147
AppellantVempati Satyanarayana Murthy
RespondentR. Krishna Iyer Alias Krishna Rao and ors.
Appellant AdvocateV.T. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA. Bhujanga Rao, Adv.;The Public Prosecutor
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 1. this petition raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether the right to recite sankalpams to such persons as bathe in the holy pushkarani thirtham in thirumalai hills and want sankalpams will fall within the scope of section 147, criminal p. rangaswami aiyangar and the learned public prosecutor, i am satisfied that in the absence of an exclusive right in the petitioner to compelevery person bathing in the holy pushkarani to submit himself to his sankalpam before using its water, the matter will not come under the scope of 'a right to water' under section 147, criminal p......claims to have exercised that right exclusively since 1728 at least, and characterises the counter-petitioners as recent interlopers usurping his right. once he and they are said to have fought over it. later on, the counter petitioners are said to be taking to their heels whenever they see the petitioner and his men approach. the learned sub-divisional magistrate initiated proceedings under section 147, criminal p. c., when asked to rescind the orders of the sub-magistrate refusing to pass orders under section 144 criminal p. c., and pass orders under section 144, criminal p. c., and then dropped the proceeding on the ground that the counter petitioners were running away at the very sight of the petitioner and so there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace. the reason is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. This petition raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether the right to recite sankalpams to such persons as bathe in the holy Pushkarani thirtham in Thirumalai Hills and want sankalpams will fall within the scope of Section 147, Criminal P. C., if there is a likelihood of the breach of the peace. The petitioner claims to have exercised that right exclusively since 1728 at least, and characterises the counter-petitioners as recent interlopers usurping his right. Once he and they are said to have fought over it. Later on, the counter petitioners are said to be taking to their heels whenever they see the petitioner and his men approach. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 147, Criminal P. C., when asked to rescind the orders of the Sub-Magistrate refusing to pass orders under Section 144 Criminal P. C., and pass orders under Section 144, Criminal P. C., and then dropped the proceeding on the ground that the counter petitioners were running away at the very sight of the petitioner and so there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace. The reason is not convincing, as even running persons may be chased and caught and beaten and a breach of the peace caused. But, after hearing Mr. V.T. Rangaswami Aiyangar and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am satisfied that in the absence of an exclusive right in the petitioner to compelevery person bathing in the holy Pushkarani to submit himself to his sankalpam before using its water, the matter will not come under the scope of 'a right to water' under Section 147, Criminal P. C., but only under the heading of 'a right to utter sankalpam at a certain place to certain persons who desire it' a thing to be normally fought out in civil Courts by way of restraining others by a permanent injunction, or by Section 144, Criminal P. C., proceedings in situations threatening a breach of the peace. I commend either step to the petitioner and dismiss this petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //