P V CHANDRAN Vs. L V KRISHNAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute centres round "Sangham" theatre at Calicut which belongs to Sahida. Hemalatha is in occupation under a transaction claimed by her to be a lease, but contended by Sahida to be only a licence. Before the Subordinate Judge, Calicut, Sahida sued Hemalatha in O. S. No. 159 of 1977 for getting possession after terminating the arrangement. On the application of Sahida the respondent, a retired Deputy Collector, was appointed as receiver. But he was allowed to take only symbolic possession subject to the occupation of Hemalatha. Sahida took up the matter in C. M. A. No. 1 of 1981 before this Court. By judgment dated 2-6-1981, the C. M. Appeal was disposed of holding that Hemalatha is only a licensee and the receiver is entitled to terminate the licence and take possession. But that was made subject to accounts being settled by the Trial Court after hearing both sides and amounts, if any, found due to Hemalatha being paid.

(2.) Receiver, who was the 5th respondent in the C. M. Appeal, took possession of the theatre and the premises at 11.30 A. M. on 3-6-1981 and submitted the original of Ext. P2 report before the Sub Judge. Though on the complaint of Hemalatha the police registered a case, it was referred as mistake of fact. Hence the appellant (husband of Hemalatha) filed C. C. No. 107 of 1981 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calicut against the receiver as first accused and Sahida as second accused for offences punishable under S.448 and 506 (ii) I. P. C. Both of them sought to quash the complaint by filing S.482 petitions before this Court unsuccessfully. Sahida went upto the Supreme Court in special leave. But leave was refused on the undertaking of the complainant that the case against Sahida will be withdrawn. Accordingly, the case against her was withdrawn and she was discharged. The case proceeded only against the receiver. He was ultimately acquitted. Present appeal is by the complainant against the acquittal.

(3.) The allegation in the complaint is that ia violation of the provisions of Ext. P2 judgment of this court in C. M. A. No. 1 of 1981, the receiver made forcible entry, took forcible possession by putting an employee PW 4 to fear of death and snatching away the keys and then went away after locking the premises. On the merits of the allegations and evidence, S.448 was repelled for the reason that even though the action of the respondent is unauthorised involving civil liability, it will not amount to criminal trespass.