NARESH KUMAR ARORA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 16 th July, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the order dated 11th September, 2008 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate declining to take cognizance of any of the offences for which the petitioner-accused was charge-sheeted by the police was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrate with a direction to proceed with the charge sheet in accordance with law.

(2.) FACTUAL background of the case is that the petitioner's Firm by the name of M/s New Heaven Color Lab was carrying on its business in a shop in premises no. 29/2,Nangia Park, Shakti Nagar since 1987. Alongwith the shop one latrine and bathroom were also allegedly taken on rent. Portions of that rented premises had been purchased from time to time by different persons. Due to some disputes with the original owners/landlords in respect of the extent of the accommodation under the petitioner's tenancy, he had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the owners/landlords. During the pendency of that suit the respondent no.2 herein Nitin Garg (the complainant) purchased that property and so he was also impleaded in the suit as defendant no.2 and when some other persons also purchased some portions of the property no.29/2 they were also impleaded in that suit. During the pendency of that suit, the respondent no.2-complainant allegedly gave an advance copy of his written statement to the petitioner- plaintiff wherein he had admitted that he had nothing to do with the latrine and bathroom which also the petitioner-plaintiff was claiming to be included in his tenancy and thereby he virtually conceded to the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff.

(3.) THE learned magistrate vide order dated 30.05.2007 ordered registration of an FIR in the matter which was accordingly registered by the police and on completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed in Court against the petitioner alleging commission of the aforesaid offences by him. At the stage of cognizance the learned Magistrate passed an order on 11th September, 2008 to the effect that offences under Sections 463/464/420 IPC were not made out and it was also observed that "The act of the accused at the most can be covered u/s 419 IPC.....". However no cognizance was taken for that offence also on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.