SEEMA SETH Vs. NAIN BALA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Code) for quashing the preliminary order dated 2nd April, 1990passed by Shri S.N. Sahai, S.D.M. (Kotwali), Delhi directing the petitioner and other concerned parties to file written statements regarding their respective claims for the premises in dispute and the order dated 3rd October, 1991 passed by Shri P.K. Dham, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi upholding the order dated 2nd April, 1990 passed by the S.D.M. (Kotwali).

(2.) . Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20th March, 1989 Police Officer P.S. Kotwali filed a kalendra under Section 145 of the Code stating therein that there was a dispute over the possession of premises 1909 (1st floor) in main Chandni Chowk among Smt. Seema Seth (petitioner herein) Smt. Nain Bala Sharma (respondent No.l herein) and Dr. O.B.Mathur (respondent No.3 herein) and that there was every liklihood of breach of peace over the possession of the said premises. Pursuant to the aforesaid kalendra, the S.D.M. (Kotwali) passed a prelhninary order dated 2nd April, 1990 under Section 145 of the Code holding that he was satisfied that there existed a serious dispute regarding possession over the disputed premises which might induce serious apprehension of breach of peace. By this order the S.D.M. directed all the parties concerned to file written statements regarding their respective claims.

(3.) . Aggrieved by the order dated 2nd April, 1990 passed by the S.D.M., the petitioner filed revision petition bearing No. Crl.R. 137/90 under Section 397 of the Code before the Sessions Court. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the possesion and control over the disputed premises had been with the petitioner and two other doctors, namely. Dr. R.S. Mudgil and Dr. O.B.Mathur and the respondent No. 1 never had any connection with the premises. In view of these facts it was contended that there was no breach of peace and the provisions of Section 145 of the Code were not attracted and as such the S.D.M. had no power to pass the impugned order dated 2nd April, 1990.