INDRAMOHAN GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. None appeared for opposite party no. 2.

(2.) The revision has been filed by Indramohan Gautam the second party to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the order dated 09.03.2012 passed by City Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 24 of 2011 under Sections 145(1) Cr.P.C., 1973 issuing notice and under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., 1973 issuing order of attachment of the house in question.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the learned Magistrate acted wrongly in passing the impugned order of attachment of the house in question under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., 1973 on the same day when he had issued notices to second party under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., 1973 fixing 23.03.2012 for objections and disposal, and so the same is wrong on facts and law; that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass impugned order of attachment under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., 1973 simultaneously with the passing of order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., 1973 inviting objections; that the house in question is being occupied by the revisionist being tenant since the times of his father; that Smt. Jamuna Devi the owner of the house in question had executed an agreement for sale in favour of father of revisionist on 20.02.1992 for a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- after accepting Rs. 2 lakhs as advance sale consideration and the sale deed was agreed to be executed within three years; that despite laps of three years Smt. Jamuna Devi the owner did not execute sale deed of the house in favour of revisionist or his father, rather sold the house to Pradeep Kumar, Brijwasi Agarwal and Shyam Sunder through registered sale deed dated 03.06.2011; that the opposite party no. 2 lodged a false FIR against the revisionist at case crime no. 266 of 2012 under Sections 384, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. in which vide order dated 23.03.2012 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3295 of 2012, the arrest of revisionist was stayed till submission of charge sheet; that since Smt. Jamuna Devi refused to accept the rent of the house in question so the revisionist deposited the same in Court in her favour, under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972; that previously one Harish Kumar moved an application for allotment of the house in question in which the Rent Control Inspector submitted report with regard to the possession of revisionist's father Basudev on the basis of his type written statement submitted to the Rent Control Inspector, stating his 20 years long possession over the house with the consent of owner of the house; that the revisionist is in actual physical possession over the house in question as tenant; that there was no urgency or apprehension of breach of peace and so also the impugned order of attachment is wrong and incorrect and is liable to be set aside; that the civil suit in respect of the property in question is also pending and so the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973 are not maintainable, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., (1985)1 SCC 427.