RAM SANEHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri R. J. Singh, counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) COUNTER-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 which is on record. Learned counsel for the applicants does not intend to file any rejoinder-affidavit and, therefore, I proceed to hear the arguments and decide these two applications finally as agreed between the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the fact that after the order was passed by the three Courts consecutively to handover the possession of the shop in question, an Advocate Commissioner had gone to execute the decree and handover the possession of the shop in question in compliance of the judicial orders, The applicants were handed over the possession but they were once again evicted and possession was taken over by the tenant/complainant which resulted in a proceeding under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C. on the same day. A photocopy of the challani report has been brought on record by means of Annexure-5 to the affidavit. The main submission advanced before this Court for quashing the complaint as well as summoning order is that the complaint is frivolous one and only with a view to pressurise the applicants from not taking possession of the shop in question. Admittedly the document which has been annexed with the application goes to show that the Advocate Commissioner was successful in getting the possession and handing over it to the landlord but on his own admission of the complainant, he was in possession since till January, 2009. Meaning thereby forceful possession was taken by the applicants after the decree was executed.