SYED AMIN CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint dated 12th December, 2005 filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 406/409/447/448 IPC. The facts as set out by the petitioner and relevant for deciding the present petition are as under:

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant of respondent No. 2 in respect of the residential premises bearing property No. 15, First Floor, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi @ Rs. 10,000/ - per month which was to be adjusted against the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ - alleged to have been spent by the petitioner so as to make the dilapidated premises of respondent No. 2 into habitable conditions. Respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit bearing case No. 174/2005 against the petitioner seeking eviction, possession and recovery of Rs. 7,00,000/ - as damages on the alleged ground of unauthorized occupation of the petitioner in the said premises bearing property No. 15, First Floor, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi and on account of depreciation, misuse and mesne profits. The petitioner filed his written statement and also raised his counter claim against the said claim of the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed replication to the written statement and the counter claim. During the pendency of the civil proceedings, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 406/409/447/448 IPC dated 12th December, 2005 before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Taking cognizance of the said complaint the Ld. M.M. summoned the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved from the order of summoning the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) . Mr. Bahar U. Barqui, counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been inducted as a tenant by respondent No. 2 in respect of the residential premises bearing property No. 15, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi @ Rs. 10,000/ - per month. According to the civil proceedings the Hon'ble Supreme Court filed by respondent No. 2 the petitioner handed over the said property to respondent No. 2. Counsel for petitioner also submits that the petitioner has in addition also paid the damages for use and occupation of the said premises @ Rs. 10,000/ - per month. Counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the averments made in the complaint would establish that no offence against the petitioner is made out either, under Section 406 or Section 448 IPC. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that as respondent No. 2 has already accepted the charges @ Rs. 10,000/ - from the petitioner, therefore, respondent No. 2 has recognized the possession of the petitioner in the said premises as a legal and valid one. Counsel also submits that respondent No. 2 in the said complaint has alleged the grabbing of the said property by the petitioner and the said allegation of grabbing of the said property will not constitute an act of criminal breach of trust. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that once the possession of the petitioner was recognized by respondent No. 2 in the said residential premises then it does not lie in the mouth of respondent No. 2 to impute breach of trust against the petitioner. Counsel, therefore, urges that the ingredients of Section 406 are not satisfied in the facts of the present case.