TIRATH DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against judgment dated October 4, 1985, of Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by which he had allowed the criminal revision filed by respondents-Joginder Lal and Smt. Taro Devi and had quashed the proceeding initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for Short 'Cr. P.C.') and also the order by which the shop in question had been attached under Section 146 Criminal Procedure Code .

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of the present petition, in brier, are that the petitioner's father Atam Parkash was allottee of Shop No. 277, Old Lajpat Rai Market. Delhi mid was given possession of the same by the Rehabilration Department on January 31, 1960. Atam Parkash had entered into a partnership with his son-in-law Pritam Dass on March 26, 1968 and a partnership business in the electronics and allied goods was carried on in the said shop. The said partnership was stated to be at will and the. name of the partnership firm was M/s Raj Electronics and that partnership business continued till March 6, 1983, when Atain Parkash died. A new partnership was brought into existence between the petitioner and Pritam Dass vide partnership deed dated March 31, 1983. with effect from March 8, 1983. One of the terms of the partnership was that Pritam Dass shall have no right, interest or claim in respect of the shop in question and the petitioner alone would continue to be allottee of the shop in place of his father Atam Parkash. On June 30, 1985, Pritam Dass died. Pritam Dass had left behind his wife Taro. Devi and two sons, namely,. Joginder Lal and Gulshan Rai.

(3.) Apetition under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . was filed by the petitioner Tirath Dass in which he impleaded. the widow and the sons of Proitam Dass as respondents and he averred that with the death of Pritam Dass the partneship stood dissolved and the petitioner alone remained in possession of the shop in question. He also pleaded that in view of the terms of the parlnership deed the petitioner alone has rights in the shop. It was averred in the petition that the shop remained closed on June 30, 1985 and when he opened the same on July 2, 1985 the respondents alongwith others tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in the said shop and they got even registered a case against the petitioner under Section 107 & 151 Cr. P.C. and after the petitioner was taken to the Police Station in the aforesaid case, the respondents put their own lock on the shop with the help of the police. The petitioner pleaded that whenever he had visited the shop later on, he was being threatened and insulted and abused by respondents 2 & 3 and thus. there has arisen a dispute between the parties with regard to the possession of the shop which may result in breach of peace a,nd so,he wanted the proceedings to be taken under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . and prayed that he be given possession of the shop. He has narrated in the petition that he had also filed a civil suit seeking inj0unction against Joginder Lal and a temporary injunction was granted on April 4, 1985, restraining Joginder Lal from interfering or obstructing the petitioner from entering the shop for carrying on his normal business activities. He also mentioned that on getting this injunction, he tried to enter the shop but he was forcibly prevented and was assaulted upon and a case under Section 341. & 325 of the Indian Penal Code vide F.I.R. No. 294 of 1985 stood regitsered at Police Station Kotwali. He also mentioned that on July 29. 1985, he again went to the shop in order to sec the account books as he was to file income-tax return but a quarrel was raised by respondent No. 2 who also held out threats to him and procecdings under Sections 107 & 151 Criminal Procedure Code . were initiated. However, it was clearly admitted in the petition that the petitioner had been dispossessed by the respondents on July 2, 1985.