PUNJ LLOYD PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (South) and for setting aside the order passed under Section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code . and attachment order under Section 146(1) Criminal Procedure Code . both dated July 31, 1992 in respect of premises bearing No. D-28, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

(2.) Brief facts which led to the present petition are as under: that the petitioner are a company registered under the Companies Act with their registered office at 17-18, Punj Lloyd House, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Shri G. V. Sharma is the Deputy General Manager (P&A) of the petitioner company. He is duly authorised and competent to sign and verify he present petition and to present the same. The petitioner have been inpossession over the premises no. D-28, Kalkaji, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "disputed property" for the sake of brevity) from April 1991 onwards by vir ue of a fenancy agreement in between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. There were certain disputes with regard to the ownership of the disputed property in between respondents No. 2 and 3 and their other brothers/co-owners regarding which several cases are pending decision before different courts of law. Consequently, respondent No. 2 and his other associates made attempts to forcibly occupy the dispuled property on May 26, 1992 and May 29, 1992. Respondent No. 2 and his associates have failed in their attempts. Having seen no alternative the petitioner filed a civil suit No. 21.43. of 1992, against respondent No. 2 and 3 and others for an injunction restraining them from dispossessing or interfering with the peacetul possession of the petitioner over he said property before the High Court of Delhi. The aforesaid court vide order dated June 3, 1992 passed an order directing the above- mentioned parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed property. The said order was duly served on the respondents. The petitioner also lodged reports with Police Station Kalkaji. The police were also duly informed with regard to the injunction order, alluded to above. The petitioner continued in actual physical possession over the disputed property till August 1, 1992. The police of PS Kalkaji visited the disputed property on August 1, 1992 in great number and directed the petitioner and their staff to vacate the disputed property and asserted that the disputed property had been ordered to be sealed and attached by the court of S.D.M. (South). After having taken control over the disputed property they served on the petitioner two orders dated July 31, 1992 purported to have been passed in proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . The disputed property was being used by the petitioner for purposes of godown-cum-residence for guards of the petitioner. The petitioner were never a party to the abovesaid proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . The order adverted to above is a result of collusion in between the police and respondent No. 2. The above order as obtained by deliberately concealing the factum of possession the petitioner over the disputed property and also by concealing the fact that the civil court had passed an injunction order for maintenance of status quo. The impugned orders under Sections 145(l) and 146(1) Criminal Procedure Code . dated July 31, 1992 are illegal, with- jurisdiction and void and initio as the same were passed in utter disregard and disobedience of the order dated June 3, 1992 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Suit No. 2143/92. has thus been prayed that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. pending before the S.D.M. (South) in case State v. shri V. P. Punj and Shri N. P. Punj be quashed and the orders dated July 31, 1992 passed under Sections 145(1) and 146(11) Cr.P.C. be set aside and the respondent No. 1 be directed to de-seal restore the possession of the disputed property to the petitioner. respondent No. 2 has put in contest, inter alia, on the following grounds: that the present petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. The petitioner should have applied under subsection (5) of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . for being impleaded as a party to the procedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . and for cancellation of the imned order passed by the learned S.D.M. The alleged tenancy agreeit executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of the petitioner company dated March 15, 1991 is a forged and fictitious document.

(3.) The aforementioned civil suit was filed by the petitioner with ulterior motive to provide cover to the illegal actions, and to pre-empt and forestall the initiation of the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . The court did no pass any restraint order and simply passed an order to maintain status quo with regard to possession. Shri S. N. P. Punj was never given authority to lei out the plot in dispute by the other co-owners. Shri S. N. P. Punj as per the arbitration award was only entitled to 1/4th portion of the plot as a co-owner which was contingent on Shri S. P. Punj executing the necessary document in respect of Group II, comprising of V. P. Punj, N. P. Punj. R. P. Punj and S. N. P. Punj executing the necessary document in a posh locality. Its area is 2,000 sq. yards. Hence, it could not have been let out for a partly amount of rent i.e. Rs. 1,250 per month. The same has been let out by Shri S. N. P. Punj i.e. respondent No. 3 to the petitioner company i.e. M/s. Punj Lloyd Pvt. Ltd., constitued of his two sons namely, Udai, Prakash and Atul Prakash. The petitioner was never in possession of the disputed plot since April 1991 in any capacity whatsoever, much less as a tenant. Attempts were made by the petitioner, their hirelings and associates including Shri S. N. P. Punj, father of Atul Punj, Managing Director of the petitioner company to forcibly occupy the disputed property during the intervening night of 2nd]3rd June, 1992. They failed in their attempt and thereafter filed a civil suit with a view to forestalling the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . The mere pendency of a civil suit or the granting of an order of main- tenance of status quo is not sufficient enough the oust the jurisdiction of the police or the Magistrate to initiate proceedings urder Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . in case there is apprehension of breach of peace. The police authorities on account of innumerable reports to them with regard to the apprehension of breach of peace with reward to the possession over the disputed property presented a calendar before the Magistrate for initiating proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . after taking legal opinion. The petition is false and frivolous and is thus liable to be dismissed.