Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2939 (MAD)

P. Devendran v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police

2010-07-19

C.T.SELVAM

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to remove the seal illegally put up by them at No.20/45, First Floor, Alamelu Mangapuram Agraharam, Mylaore, Chennai – 600 004. 2. The petitioner informs that he has entered tenancy in respect of the premises under one G.Ramachandran and was running his office therefrom since 15.04.2009. Having gone out of station, the petitioner returned on 21.11.2009 and found such premises locked and sealed. On enquiry neither the neighbors nor the landlord Mr.Ramachandran was aware of how the premises came to be sealed. The petitioner called on the second respondent police on 23.11.2009, when he was informed that one Sri Vedantha Desikar Devasthanam of Myalpore had lodged a complaint and a case in Crime No.1150 of 2009 for offence under Sections 448, 427 IPC was registered against the landlord Mr.Ramachandran and other unknown persons. The second respondent police informed that on the specific instruction of the first respondent, he has sealed the premises. The petitioner would trace the title of the landlord to inform that he was a statutory tenant and could not be evicted except through due process of law under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act. 3. The second respondent has filed the status report which informs as follows: "3. It is submitted that the above referred F.I.R. In Crime No.1150/2009 dated 07.11.2009 has been registered by the Sub Inspector of Police against the petitioner and others on accusation of having committed offences under Section 448, 427 IPC @ 420, 427, 448, 461, 462, 466, 471 of IPC and under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. 4. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, I was able to understand that there is litigation regarding possession of the said property, which is measuring about 4 grounds an 1866 square feet worth about several crores as on date, in A.S.No.167/2009, pending the file of the Honourable IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai. I was able to understand that there is an order of injunction restraining Mr.G.Ramachandran and others from inducting any third parties in possession of the disputed temple property, in C.M.P.No.519 and 520/2009. 5. It is humbly submitted that there is a judgment dated 03.02.2009 passed in O.S.No.3659/2003 on the file of IV th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai. I was able to understand that there is an order of injunction restraining Mr.G.Ramachandran and others from inducting any third parties in possession of the disputed temple property, in C.M.P.No.519 and 520/2009. 5. It is humbly submitted that there is a judgment dated 03.02.2009 passed in O.S.No.3659/2003 on the file of IV th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai. In turn, the Decree holder Mr.G.Ramachandran has made 3 different rental agreements with the petitioner relating to the whole property, which is in possession of some other third parties as on the said date. 6. It is humbly submitted that I have requested both the counsels concerned to place the records pertaining to C.C.No.227/2002 and E.C.No.26/2002 on the file of the Honourable High Court of Calcutta, relating to a proceedings initiated by one M/s.Swiss Progressive products Pvt. Ltd., against M/s.Nurit India Limited, in which the said Mr.G.Ramachandran was a Director. I have clearly indicated to the parties concerned as if the police cannot interfere in Civil matters and also stated that the police is concerned only in respect of the High handed act of breaking open a seal affixed as per the orders of the Honourable High Court, Calcutta. 7. It is further submitted that I have been placed an order dated 08.11.2002 passed by the Honourable High Court, Calcutta in proceedings in C.C.No.227/2002, relating to the order of sealing the portion of the disputed temple property by the defacto complainant i.e. Sri vedantha Desikar Devasthanam. But the petitioner and another person named Mr.Shanmugam have started evading and not cooperated with the investigation. 8. It is further submitted that based on the complaint dated 07.11.2009, a case has been registered against the said Mr.G.Ramachandran and others under Section 448, 427 of IPC. 9. It is further submitted that the petitioner and another person named Mr.Shanmugam have chosen to prefer an anticipatory bail petition before the Honourable Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in Criminal M.P.No.10645/2009. The same was dismissed by the Honourable Priniciple and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in Criminal by an order dated 11.11.2009 as it was maintainable, since case has been registered only under bailable sections. 10. The same was dismissed by the Honourable Priniciple and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in Criminal by an order dated 11.11.2009 as it was maintainable, since case has been registered only under bailable sections. 10. It is submitted that while so, the defacto complainant has chosen to give a further complaint dated 11.11.2009 as if the seal of High Court was tampered and as if documents have been prepared to gain the confidence of the people in and around to make them believe as it was done by the learned receiver originally appointed by the Honourable High Court, Calcutta as per its order dated 08.11.2002. 11. It is further submitted that we have done our duty based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, after giving sufficient opportunity during the course of investigation to the parties concerned in the matter known to law. 12. It is further submitted that at the time of sealing premises none was there in the said portion, it was sealed before the witnesses who were available at the time and seized the keys and deposited before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The same was also witnessed by all the dailies. The possession of the petitioner is disputed by the defacto complainant. Based on the first information cases has been registered. On 26.11.2009, the petitioner and others are surrendered before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and later released on bail. The petitioner has not chosen to cooperate the investigation to disprove the allegations made against him, in the manner known to law. The stage of the case was informed to the all the Courts concerned." 4. From the above, this Court can find no justification whatsoever for the action of the second respondent in sealing the premises. Further on perusal of the typed set filed by the petitioner, we find that the proceedings in C.C.No.227/2002 wherein M/s.Nurit India Limited (the company wherein the landlord of the petitioner is said to be Director) is the defendant, stands dismissed by the Honourable High Court of Calcutta on 08.10.2004. Again, we find that the proceeding in E.C.No.26/2002 in C.S.No.483 of 2000 was dismissed for default and interim order therein stands vacated by the order of the Calcutta High Court dated 12.05.2008 (E.C.No.26 of 2002 is the proceeding wherein the administrator was appointed by the Calcutta High Court). 5. Again, we find that the proceeding in E.C.No.26/2002 in C.S.No.483 of 2000 was dismissed for default and interim order therein stands vacated by the order of the Calcutta High Court dated 12.05.2008 (E.C.No.26 of 2002 is the proceeding wherein the administrator was appointed by the Calcutta High Court). 5. The learned counsel Mr.S.Sathyanarayanan, appearing on behalf of the intervener/defacto complainant sought to support the action of the second respondent by informing that such was pursuant to the orders of the Calcutta High Court and in furtherance of the request of the receiver appointed by such Court, towards carrying out his functions. He contends that even if the suit in which the receiver is appointed is dismissed still, he would continue as receiver till he was duly discharged by the Court which appointed him. He further would inform that the petitioner and his landlord are rank trespassers and they cannot legitimately complain of dispossession. 6. The Learned Government Advocate would submit that powers are conferred with the police authorities under Section 102 Cr.P.C., and the respondent police could resort to such action as sealing of premises towards ensuring peace in a particular area. The respondent had immediately upon sealing the premises handed over the keys to the Magistrate. In the facts and circumstances of the case the action of the second respondent ought not to be faulted. 7. As already indicated above, this Court is unable to see any justification for the action indulged upon by the second respondent. If he apprehended a breach of the peace, it would have been for him to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The action of the second respondent in sealing the disputed premises without being clothed with any power to do so can only be seen as an act exceeding his authority. The contention of the learned counsel for the intervener does not hold any merit in the light of the very civil actions wherein the receiver was appointed having come to an end. The proposition that the receiver continues to be such, unless discharged by the Court appointing him, generally applies towards enforcing the accountability of the receiver. 8. In the result this petition shall stand allowed. The proposition that the receiver continues to be such, unless discharged by the Court appointing him, generally applies towards enforcing the accountability of the receiver. 8. In the result this petition shall stand allowed. The second respondent shall remove the seal put up by him at No.20/45 First Floor, Alamelu Mangapuram Agraharam, Mylaore, Chennai – 600 004 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.