Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 449 (DEL)

Jagmohan Singh v. State

2012-02-06

V.K.SHALI

body2012
JUDGMENT : V.K. Shali, J.:— (oral) 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners for quashing of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the order dated 05.01.2012 passed by the Sub Division Magistrate, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the filing of the present petition are that a complaint is purported to have been made by Ajay Kumra, Amit Kumra and Rishi Kumra, sons of Late Shri Subhash Kumra, R/o 8908, Shidi Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which is recorded vide D.D. No. 31 PP on 28.12.2011. In this complaint, the complainants have stated that they are the owners of the property bearing No.8941/14-B, Siddhipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, which originally belonged to their grandfather, Dharmveer Verma, who had allegedly inducted Sardar Jagmohan Singh as the tenant in respect of the said premises, on a monthly rent of Rs.14,000/-, to be used for the purpose of carrying out his business under the name and style of M/s India Product. It is alleged in the complaint that after the death of Dharmveer Verma, the petitioner no.1/Jagmohan Singh is alleged to have stopped the business and illegally inducted his son Amarjeet Singh, (who is complete stranger to the property) to occupy the same, who is purported to have started the business in the above mentioned premises under the name and style of M/s.Mayur Enterprises. It has also been alleged that the respondents herein asked Amarjeet Singh to vacate the suit property and handover its peaceful vacant possession to them whereupon they have been refusing to do the same. On the contrary, it was alleged that the father and the son have illegally and conveniently been usurping the property. It is alleged in the complaint that Sardar Jagmohan is the President of a Merchant Association and is having a team of well armed miscreants and with the help of these henchmen he is restraining the respondents from approaching the suit property. It is stated that the petitioners wanted to avoid any confrontation. 3. On the basis of this complaint, the Sub Inspector of the concerned police station made an inquiry and filed a Kalandra under Section 145 Cr.P.C., wherein he opined that there was an apprehension of breach of peace because of the dispute regarding the occupation of the premises in question. 3. On the basis of this complaint, the Sub Inspector of the concerned police station made an inquiry and filed a Kalandra under Section 145 Cr.P.C., wherein he opined that there was an apprehension of breach of peace because of the dispute regarding the occupation of the premises in question. A Kalandra under Section 145 Cr.P.C was prepared and the same was filed with the SDM along with the requisite statement of the complainants and the other documents prepared during inquiry. It was placed before Sh.Girish Pandey, SDM (Karol Bagh) and he passed an order on 05.01.2012 directing the appearance of the petitioners before him on 11.01.2012 at 2.30 P.M. A fresh order was passed for appearance on 25.01.2012 of the petitioners on the allegation that Jagmohan Singh and Taran Deep Singh have illegally possessed the property in question and since there was an apprehension of breach of peace, they were required to show cause as to why the orders may not be passed against them. 4. In the meantime, the parties were also directed to maintain the status quo regarding the possession and also keep peace in the area. It is not clear from the petition as to whether on 25.01.2012, the petitioner appeared before the learned SDM or not. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid Kalandra and the order of summoning dated 05.01.2012 passed by the learned SDM is without any application of mind in as much as there is no dispute about the possession of the shop in question and further there is a litigation pending between the parties with regard to the suit property. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court towards certain documents like the petition under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act by M/s.Mayur Enterprises seeking permission to deposit the rent in Court, as it was allegedly stated by them that the respondents/landlords were not accepting the rent. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 7. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 7. Section 145 Cr.P.C. lays down an elaborate procedure whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied by a report of a police officer or upon any other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims in respect of the actual possession of the suit property. This is evident from the reading of sub clause 4, 5 and 6 of the Section 145 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the entire contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was no occasion for the SDM to issue the process against them on account of the fact that they are in actual possession of the property in question. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that the petitioners are not in possession of the property in question that in itself does not guarantee that there could be no occasion for breach of peace. There are rival claims made by the opposite parties in as much as the petitioners are claiming their possession in the shop in question to be lawful while as the respondents/complainants are alleging that the petitioners have illegally obtained the possession of the shop and are trying to grab the property. It is also alleged by them that the petitioners are preventing not only the access of the respondents to approach the property in question but also threatening them with dire consequences. Obviously, in case these are the facts alleged by the rival parties and there is every likelihood that there will be a breach of peace then this need to be addressed by the SDM, who is duly authorized by law in this regard. Obviously, in case these are the facts alleged by the rival parties and there is every likelihood that there will be a breach of peace then this need to be addressed by the SDM, who is duly authorized by law in this regard. So far as the defence of the petitioners that they are in lawful possession of the property or that there is no apprehension of breach of peace is concerned, this can be shown by them only during the course of inquiry by the SDM, in terms of sub clause 6 of the Section 145 Cr.P.C., whereupon, the learned Magistrate can pass an appropriate order and if the petitioners still feel aggrieved they can go to an appropriate forum seeking redressal of their grievance. In the instant case, the petitioners, at the threshold itself, have tried to convert the High Court into a Court of fact finding as to whether there exists a ground for breach of peace warranting an inquiry to be made by the SDM or not. I feel that this cannot be permitted to be done. The petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy available to them, to approach the SDM and show their defence, rather than to file the present petition assailing not only the Kalandra but also prima facie the summoning order for which I feel that there is sufficient evidence. I feel that there was sufficient prima facie evidence before the SDM to form an opinion about reasonable apprehension that there could be a breach of peace in case the matter was not attended by the police. 8. I, accordingly, feel that the present petition is totally misconceived and the same is dismissed leaving the petitioners to approach the learned SDM to conclude the inquiry. Stay stands vacated, if any. _____________