NINA NARGIS DEVAUD Vs. FARIDA G DEVECHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case in which the daughter and her mother, who has taken a second husband are at loggerheads to such an extent that they are involved in Civil as well as Criminal litigation.

(2.) Respondent Mrs. Farida G. Devecha is the daughter of first petitioner Mrs. Nina Nargis Devaud. Second petitioner Mr. Henri Devaud is the second husband of the 1st petitioner. Respondent is the daughter born to the first petitioner out of her wedlock with her former husband F. K. Irani who appears to have died in 1985. Thereafter, first petitioner is said to have married the second petitioner who is of Swiss Nationality, in 1988. F. K. Irani owned a spacious building with a vast compound bearing old No. I (New No.3) in the Museum Road, Civil Station, Bangalore 1. The said house and the space adjoining it also abuts the Church street on the otherside. There is sharp controversy as to whether the respondent or the petitioners are in lawful and exclusive physical possession of that property. On 5-12-89, first petitioner is said to have addressed a letter to her daughter, the respondent, which reads thus : "My Dear Farida, This is to request you to make immediate arrangement her removal of your equipment and material stored in our premises. The car No. MEO- 6527 and Motorbike No. CAO 7935 should he removed immediately on receipt of this letter and various miscellaneous building material is to be removed within 24 hours. If you fail to clear everything within the stipulated time, the same shall be removed by us at your own risks and cost. We shall not be responsible for any losses or damages". After receipt of that letter, respondent filed a suit against the petitioners on 7-12-89 in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants (petitioners herein) from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property including the furniture, equipment, vehicles and other movables thereon and also from inducting any third party into the whole or any portion of the schedule property or making any permanent additions or alterations to the schedule property, by mentioning in the plaint that the cause of action for the said suit had arisen on 5-12-1989. Schedule property referred to in the plaint is stated to be the above mentioned building and vacant space. The plaint was registered as O.S. No. 10719/89. Respondent also filed I.A.I. in that suit on 7-12-89 itself under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for an order of temporary injunction against the defendants in the above terms pending disposal of the suit. Along with I.A.I., respondent had also produced with a list, the letter dated 5-12-89 referred to above.

(3.) On a perusal of that letter which is mentioned as notice, additional City Civil Judge, sitting at Mayo Hall, Bangalore, passed an order on 7-12-89 as under : "Hence, it is ordered to maintain statusquo as on the date of this order. EN, SS, status-quo order returnable by 12-12-1989". Respondent filed a private complaint under S.200, Cr. P.C. against the petitioners by arraying them as accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, VI, Court, Bangalore (for short 'the Magistrate) on 18-12-89 alleging that the accused (Petitioners herein) had committed offences punishable u/Ss.454, 380, 427 and 341, IPC and, therefore, they may be punished in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate referred that complaint under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. to the PSI of Cubbon Park Police Station with a direction to investigate into the allegations made in the complaint and to submit his report. Thereupon, Cubbon Park Police after making necessary investigation submitted a 'B' report dated 12-1-90 requesting the learned Magistrate to treat the case as civil in nature. Respondent was notified of that report. Thereafter, she filed a protest petition to the 'B' report in PCR 138/89 which was the number given to her complaint by the learned Magistrate stating therein that the 'B' report submitted by the Police was a lopsided report prepared with the obvious intention of favouring the accused without making proper investigation into the allegations made in the complaint and, therefore the said report may be set aside and she may be given an opportunity to proceed with her complaint in accordance with law. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the respondent-complainant on 8-5-90. On a consideration of the allegations made in the complaint, the contents of the 'B' report and the sworn statement of the respondent, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 10-5-90 rejecting the 'B' report and further taking cognizance of the offences u/Ss.341, 380, 427 and 448 read with S. 34, IPC against both the accused (petitioners herein). He further ordered registration of the case against both the accused and issue of process to them and for calling the case on 17-5-90. Accordingly, a case is registered against the petitioners in C.C.676/ 90 and process is issued against them. Petitioners have filed the present petition u/S.482, Cr. P.C. on 4-8-90 with Xerox copies of several documents for quashing the order dated 10-5-90 made in PCR 138/89 pursuant to which C.C.676/90 is registered on the file of the learned Magistrate and to grant them such other reliefs to which they are entitled.