MUNAWAR UL QADAR Vs. JUI QADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application bas been filed under section 482 Cr. P.C. by Munawar-Ul-Qadar praying that the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C. pending between Hajj Mohd. Zul Qadar, opposite party No. 1 and the applicant be quashed in the interest of justice. This Court after hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant had issued a show cause notice to opposite parties as to why the application should not be allowed at the time of admission itself. The court, however, passed an interim order directing that in the meantime status quo shall be maintained in proceedings under section 145 Cr. PC pending before City Magistrate, Saharanpur.

(2.) The property in dispute is a shop hearing No. 4/27 situated at Bomanji Road, Saharanpur which is said to be in the joint ownership of Azizul Qadar, Izhar Ahmad and Smt. Akhtari Begum. According to the applicant, the shop in dispute is run by him under the name and style of M/s Munawar-Ul-Qadar Timber Suppliers. The parties are admittedly closely related to each other and a pedigree given in para 3 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties is reproduced below. Zahoor Moham mad (deceased) Phool Mohd. Izhar Ahamad Zamir Ahmad Zaul Azizul Azimul Rahimul Nayyarul Munawar UI Qadar Qadar Qadar Qadar Qadar Qadar Thus as evident from the above pedigree, the applicant Munawar-Ul-Qadar and the opposite party No. 1 Zul Qadar are brothers being the sons of Phool Mohammad.

(3.) The case of the applicant is that the shop in dispute is jointly owned by Azizul Qadar, Izharul Qadar and Smt. Akhtari Begum and the same is in the tenancy of the applicant since 1.5.1986. The receipts of rent dated 1-5-1986, 2-7-1986, 4-8-1986 and 5-9-1986 have been annexed by the applicant as Annexure 1 to the affidavit. The aforesaid assertion of the applicant that the shop in dispute has been in his tenancy had not specifically been denied by Zul Qadar in para 20 of his affidavit though it was half-heartedly averred in para 15 of the affidavit that the applicant had concocted the story that he had taken the premises on rent. The applicant had also asserted that be applied for Sales Tax registration on 1-9-1986 and survey was conducted by Sales Tax Department on 10-10-1986 and the aforesaid Department found that the shop had been running from 1-5-1986 and consequently, the applicant was issued a Sales Tax registration number for the aforesaid shop. This assertion of the applicant was also not specifically denied by opposite party No. 1 in para 23 of his affidavit as it was merely and feebly averred that the documents were fabricated.