SHRIMATI VINOD Vs. RAM PARSHAD CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUCCINCTLY the facts leading to this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) are that the petitioners - Smt. Vinod Smt, Shila Kumari and Smt. Madhu are the wives of the owners/landlords of house No. 3103, Kucha Tarachand, Daryaganj. Dr. Ram Parshad Chopra, respondent No. 1 lives in a portion of the said house as a tenant and is allegedly running his clinic also there. It appears that some dispute exists between the parties as eviction proceedings have been instituted by the landlords against respondent No. 1. Daryaganj Police submitted a Kalendra under section 107/150 of the Code to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Daryaganj, who was also exercising the powers of a Special Executive Magistrate, for initiation of security proceedings against the petitioners on the allegation that they were indulging in such acts, viz. threats and abuses to respondent No. 1 which were likely to provoke breach of peace and disturb public peace and tranquillity. An order under Section 111 of the Code was thereupon drawn up by the Special Executive Magistrate on 14th October, 1982 and the petitioners were summoned to appear before him on 30th October, 1982. Accordingly the petitioners put in appearance before him on the said date and filed their reply to the show-cause notice. The proceedings were adjourned from time to time for one reason or the other but no progress could be made. On 23rd April 1983, the examination-in-chief of respondent No. 1 was recorded but his cross-examination was deferred at the request of the petitioners to 21st May, 1983. On that day the Special Executive Magistrate happened to be busy. On the next adjourned date, counsel for the petitioners was not present and the case was adjourned to 28th July, 1983. On that day, the Special Executive Magistrate dropped the proceedings, inter alia, observing that :

(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the said order the respondent went in revision to the court of Session which was heard and finally disposed of by an Additional Sessions Judge (Miss Usha Mehra) vide order dated 24th October, 1983. She allowed the revision petition and directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police-cum-Special Executive Magistrate to decide the case in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to the parties. She, inter alia, observed in her order that :

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has at the outset, raised an objection to the maintainability of this petition under Section 482 of the Code. He has vehemently urged that subsequent to the impugned order the petitioners appeared before the Special Executive Magistrate on various dates and they took even adjournments for cross-examinations of Dr. Ram Parshad Chopra. Thus, it is urged that this petition is not maintainable, more so when the impugned order could be well challenged in revision under Section 397 of the Code. However, I am unable to see the force of this argument because neither any rule of estoppel nor laches in making this application can be pressed into service for throwing out this petition. As observed by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47;