SATISH SADAN Vs. PRITHVI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This perilion has been brought under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashment of the proceedings and the final order dated November 19, 1981 made by the S.D.M. under Section 145 of the Code, and also the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated November 15, 1983 by which the revision petition brought by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 1 Prithvi Raj had taken on rent shop/garage No. 78(5) Tolstoy Lane, Connaught Place on the rental of Rs. 15 per month in the year 1966 or so. Admittedly there are many landlords .of the said premises and one of them is Satish Roy Kapur. On July 27, 1977, Prithvi Raj and the petitioner Satish Sadan entered into a partnership agreement, copy of which is Ex. DWI/A on the basis of which on July 30, 1977, Rs. 4.000 were paid by Satish Sadan to Prithvi Raj, respondent No. I vide receipt copy of which is Ex. DB which indicates that the same bad been given as advance of profits covering the period of four months. One of the terms of the partnership agreement was that respondent No. I Prithvi Raj was to be paid Rs. 1000 per month minimum profit. The case of the petitioner is that in fact respondent No. I Prithvi Raj had sublet the said premises to him at the rental of Rs. 1000 per month but a sham partnership deed was executed so that the factum of subletting may remainconcealed from the landlords and on the basis of the said transaction, the petitioner is stated to have come into the exclusive possession of the said garage with effect from August 1. 1977. On April 20, 1978, Prithvi Raj, respondent No. I had given a complaint, Ex. DN to the SHO, Police Station Gonnaught Place mentioning that be has been the tenant in the said premises since 1966 and on April 3, 1978, the shop in question was broken open by Satish Sadan, his previous partner at about 11.30 P.M. and he bad removed his board of Hind Book House which stood earlier, fixed on the gate of his shop and had put his own locks on April 4, 1974 after throwing out the books and the racks belonging to the respondent outside the shop. According to this complaint respondent bad come to know of this fact only on the next morning at 11 A.M. and he immediately went to the Parliament Street Police Station and brought this fact to the notice of the S.P. So, he stated that petitioner bad taken possession of the said shop illegally by breaking open the the lock and some of the books belonging to the respondent were not still traceable and had been perhaps kept by the petitioner. So, he wanted that the possession of the shop be restored to him.

(3.) Petitioner Satish Sadan had also given a complaint to the police which is dated April 7, 1978 in which he had mentioned that he had taken this particular premises on rent from respondent Prithvi Raj and his staff comprising of five persons were working in the premises and were engaged in stitching garments and respondent and his representatives had come to the premises earlier and asked them to vacate the premises immediately and be expected some untoward action on the part of the respondent and his companions and he sought protection of the police. The SHO of that police station put in a Kalandra dated May 4, 1978 before the S.D.M. in which he narrated the facts as appeared in the said two cross complaints received from petitioner and respondent No. I and he expressed apprehen- sion that there might not take place any breach of peace. So, he submitted that action may be taken. Kalendra was put in under Punjab Police Rule 23.32.