RAJ NATH GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Crl.M.(M)179/93) petitioner's seek quashing of the order dated 9.9.1992 passed by Shri Sukhdev Singh Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi directing issuance of summons against them under Section 448/506/108/182/183) of the IPC. The petitioner Arif Mohd. Khan has also filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Crl.M.(M) No.194/93) for the same relief. I propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common order.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these petitions are that in an eviction Suit E-752/1989, the respondent No.2 obtained a decree against M/s. Shawl Arts for recovery of possession of the first and second floor of the premises No.A-415 Defence Colony, New Delhi. On 4.8.1990, at about 9 a.m. the respondent Smt. Amar Kaur, accompanied by the Court bailiff came of possession of the said premises. According to the first information report lodged by the petitioner Rajnath Gupta, at that time respondent Smt. Amar Kaur, accompanied by her son brother-in-law Amar Kumar, Sarbjeet Singh, Kartar Singh and some 4-5 persons, came to the spot and attempted to take forcible possession of the said premises by throwing away the goods belonging to him and Kartar Singh and his companions also assaulted him. On this complaint, the case FIR No. 448/427/323/34, Indian Penal Code was registered at the Police Station Defence Colony. Investigation pursuant to the said FIR culminated into submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 448/427/323/34, Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, namely Smt. Amar Kaur & Ors.

(3.) The respondent Smt. Amar Kaur also filed a criminal complaint under Sections 442/448/186/427/506/108/120-B/34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners (except the petitioner Arif Mohd. Khan) regarding the same incident. The gravamen of the allegations in the said complaint is that on the day in question at about 9.15 A.M., the Court bailiff delivered possession of the second floor to the respondent in execution of the warrant of possession issued in the execution proceedings. While the Court bailiff was completing the formalities for delivery of possession of the remaining portion of the premises i.e. first floor of the premises, the petitioner Rajnath Gupta called the police. After arrival of the police the petitioner Arif Mohd. Khan also came to the spot and obstructed the Court bailiff from executing the warrant. It is also alleged that after giving necessary instructions to the police the petitioner Arif Mohd. Khan left the spot. After departure of the petitoner Arif Mohd. Khan, the remaining petitioners forcibly took possession of the 2nd floor of the premises in question and wrongfully prevented the Court bailiff from executing the warrant of possession in respect of the remaining portion thereof.