Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 127 (UTT)

D. K. Modi v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-06-06

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : The challenge in this revision is made to the impugned order dated 15.01.2010, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.13 of 2010, Dr. D.K. Modi and another Vs. S.K. Bajpai and another, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. By the impugned order, an application filed under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) by the revisionists has been rejected on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Respondent no.4 was issued notice but a report is received on 24.09.2020 to the effect that he has died on 26.09.2016. the Court proceeds to decide the revision. In the memo of parties against the name of the respondent no.4, it shall be recorded that “died on 29.06.2016”. 4. According to the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) of the Code (Annexure No. 6 to the revision), the revisionists have been staying in Modi Bhawan, The Retreat, Ward No. 8, Ayarpata Mallital, Nainital (“the property”) for the last 25 years alongwith family. On 05.12.2009, when the family of the revisionists had gone to Delhi, the respondent nos. 2 to 4 forcibly entered into the property and took its possession. They denied the entry to the revisionists thereafter. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that the father of the revisionist no.1 was the Director of the Modi Rubber Ltd. and in his capacity, as such, he was residing in the property. After the death of his father, the revisionist no. 1 continued staying in the property, but the private respondents forcibly taken the possession of it and thereby they committed offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, which ought to have been investigated, but the court below by rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code, has committed an error of law. Therefore, it is argued that the revision deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would submit that, in fact, the property belongs to Modi Rubber Ltd. The respondent nos. Therefore, it is argued that the revision deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would submit that, in fact, the property belongs to Modi Rubber Ltd. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are also working in the Modi Rubber Ltd. The Modi Rubber Ltd had filed a civil suit seeking injunction against the revisionists and others in which temporary injunction has been granted against the revisionists and the property is in the possession of Modi Rubber Ltd. It is also submitted that respondent nos. 2 and 3 are also employees with the Modi Rubber Ltd. It was a guest house of the Modi Rubber Ltd. It is also informed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 that the revisionists has also filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“the Act”), which is still pending. 7. The property belongs to Modi Rubber Ltd. in which, according to the revisionists themselves the father of the revisionist no.1 was staying in his capacity as the Director. Modi Rubber Ltd. employees have allegedly occupied the property. A suit has been filed by the Modi Rubber Ltd. which is pending. In which, it is stated that injunction order is operative against the revisionists. The revisionists also seeks possession of the property by filing the suit under Section 6 the Act. 8. Undoubtedly, this is purely a civil dispute. The court below has rightly observed that the dispute is purely civil in nature and no cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed. The court below has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 156 (3) of the Code. 9. This Court does not see any error in the impugned order. Hence, the revision deserves to be dismissed. 10. The revision is dismissed.