SURESH PRAKASH Vs. KRISHNA SWARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed toy Suresh Prakash under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in case No, 2 under Section 133, Cr. P. C. pending in the court of City Magistrate, Etawah,

(2.) SURESH Prakash claims to be tenant of the shop which is sought to be demolished. Proceedings under Sec 133, Cr. P. C. were started on the basis of the application of Krishna Swarup and his brothers, opposite parties, who are the owners of the building No, 125 in Mo'halla Karsol, Etawah, of which the shop is a portion. The application was supported by a report of the Engineer to the effect that the building had (become very old and was in a dilapidated condition and was likely to fall down. That report of the Engineer has been annexed to the counter-affidavit but there is reference to it in the subsequent order of the Magistrate. passed on 2-6-1975. The Magistrate passed the preliminary order under Section 133, Cr. P. C. against the petitioner on 8-4-1975 which was to the effect that it has been made to appear to him that the portion of the building has become in such a condition that it was likely to fall any moment and thereby to cause injury to. persons living in the neighbourhood and the pedestrians passing on the railway station Gwalior Road and that in consequence the removal of the portion of the building was urgent to save the life and property of the general public and the petitioner being licen-cee, he was directed to vacate the building within 7 days or to appear in his court on the date fixed and show cause. It appears that the petitioner had already filed suit No. 472 of 1973 against the landlord for restraining them from demolishing that building. That suit is said to be still pending. In that suit an interim injunc- tion order dated 17-3-1975 was obtained by the. petitioner which was to the effect that the defendants' (i. e. present opposite parties) were restrained from either demolishing the shop in suit or from evicting the. plaintiff from the said shop except in due process of law. The applicant appeared before the Magistrate and moved an application to the effect that the proceedings should be dropped because the same matter was pending in the court of the Munsif and an injunction order has already been issued. It was also stated in the application that the entire proceedings had been started mala fide by the landlords. The learned Magistrate considered that application and after hearing the applicant. passed another order dated 2-6-1975 to the effect that the case would proceed in spite of the injunction order as (by that order the Magistrate has not been restrained and has not put any bar even on the defendants to proceed according to law. Feeling aggrieved by this order this petition was filed,

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that any final order passed by the Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P. C. would be in conflict with the injunction order passed by the Munsif as ultimately the landlord alone would be required to demolish the building under Section 133, Cr P. C. As already stated above there is no bar to the landlord demolishing the building in due process of law. The learned Counsel has argued that due process of law would mean under the decree of a civil court where rights or title of the parties can be decided. He has placed reliance on the definition of the word 'due' as given in Webster dictionary. It means 'right' or 'title'. This- definition applies when the word 'due' is used as a noun, In case the landlord who is the defendant in the civil suit is ordered to demolish a building under Section 133, Cr. P. C. by the Magistrate and he demolishes it in pursuance of that order, it can certainly be said that he acted in due process of law, I am not prepared to give a restricted interpretation to the words 'due process of law' that they refer only to civil proceedings.