S SUBHADRA Vs. ADISHWAR INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash all the proceedings in Crime No. 160 of 2004 (PCR No. 8650 of 2004) of Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this case are as follows.- That the petitioner is one Subhadra who is a permanent resident of Subedarpet, Nellore in Andhra Pradesh and she is the owner of the vacant premises at Nellore bearing No. 15/374 situated at Subedarpur, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. First respondent-Company approached her as they wanted the said building for rent to run their company Accordingly, petitioner agreed for the same. The petitioner and first respondent agreed that the first respondent would pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as rental advance and the petitioner agreed to let out the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-. To that effect, agreement was entered into between the parties at Nellore and the rental agreement was prepared at Nellore on 19-1-2003. The petitioner handed over possession of the said premises to the first respondent-Company on the same date i.e., on 19-1-2003. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent-Company started its business in the said premises and the business was running smoothly. After some time, first respondent-Company was not successful in the business which was started in the premises of the petitioner. Therefore, the first respondent wanted to closed down its business in the Branch Office at Nellore Therefore, first respondent approached the petitioner and told her that the first respondent has incurred a loss in the business and he wanted to close the office and would vacate the premises. Saying so, first respondent handed over the possession of the building on 2-4-2004. It is further case of the petitioner that she is turn handed over the rental advance of Rs. 1 lakh to the first respondent and after refund of the (sic) sum of Rs. 1 lakh rental advance, first respondent vacated the premises. He has filed a private complaint before the 7th City Municipal Magistrate, Bangalore on the allegation that petitioner with (sic) and intentionally did not refund the said rental advance and that (sic) has cheated him. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, after perusing (sic) allegations made in the complaint, has referred the complaint to that Police Inspector, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bangalore under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to investigate and submit a report on or before 30-10-2004. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has come up with this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings initiated against her mainly on the ground that when the first respondent handed over the keys of the premises in question to her, on the very same day, she has refunded the rental advance of Rs. 1 lakh and no tenant will handover the keys to the landlord without obtaining rental advance paid to the landlord and private complaint filed by the first respondent herein is to harass her and tornish her image in the society. She further contends that since the matter is civil in nature, first respondent cannot invoke and initiate criminal proceedings against her. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate, without applying his mind, referred the matter to Police Inspector, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bangalore as he has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the property is situated at Nellore and the agreement was entered into between the parties at Nellore. She further contends that first respondent caused huge loss to the petitioner by damaging the walls, furnitures and also while removing the interior decorations and first respondent has not paid damages and he has also not paid rent for a period of four months. Hence, this petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for first respondent hkd contended that Company has filed its complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and the first respondent himself has requested the Court to refer the matter to jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. with a direction to the Investigating Officer to investigate the case and to deal with in accordance with law. It is further contended that first respondent had started its business in the premises of the petitioner for a short period at Subedarpur at Nellore. The petitioner informed the first respondent that she will return advance of Rs. 1 lakh at the time of handing over vacant possession of the building and the petitioner has not yet paid refund advance amount. So, believing the version of the petitioner-accused, he handed over the keys of the premises by vacating the same'. Therefore, the petition is not at all maintainable. Accordingly, this petition be dismissed as not maintainable.