GOVIND RAMCHANDRA NADKARNI Vs. CHANDBIBI HYDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original complainant, being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd December, 1992 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, in Case No. 6/s of 1991, discharging accused No. 2 Smt. Chandbibi for offences punishable under sections 289, 341, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, directing that the case will proceed only against accused No. 1 R. J. Metha.

(2.) FEW facts which are required to be stated are as follows: the petitioner filed a complaint dated 11th April, 1984 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, against both the accused under sections 289, 341, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated by him in the said complaint that he is a practising Advocate, having his office situated at Room No. 5 on the second floor of Kennedy House near Kennedy Bridge, Bombay-7. Petitioner is the tenant of this office premises and has been using the said office since the year 1961, and is in occupation and possession of it since 1993. Accused No. 2 is residing on the second floor of the said building in Room No. 3. Accommodation was provided to her on account of her being in the employment of the said union. She is working as Private Secretary to accused No. 1 and is in the good books of accused No. 1. She controls the office staff of the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha.

(3.) THE petitioner has further stated in the said complaint that in the year 1976-77 original accused No. 1 R. J. Metha, who is the President of the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha (a Labour Union), purchased the said building, Kennedy House in the name of its union "engineering Mazdoor Sabha", and that, since that time, he started harassing all the tenants of the said building Kennedy House. It is the contention of the petitioner that original accused No. 1 carried out extensive repair work, after obtaining no objection certificate from Housing Board and Bombay Municipal Corporation. According to the complainant, the plan of accused No. 1 was to effect structural changes and to deprive the tenants and occupiers of their premises permanently. The repair work started somewhere in the year 1979 and continued till the year 1983. Several Verandas, staircase at one place and the toilet blocks were demolished by him and false promises were given to the tenants that he would carry out construction within two months, and got the building vacated. The petitioner, however, apprehending the plan of the said Mehta of depriving the petitioner by change of plans, moved the Court of Small Causes in the year 1982, and obtained stay orders, which frustrated his plans. Thereafter, the veranda and the staircase were constructed by the accused No. 1, but that, the new iron construction was too weighty for the wooden framework and big cracks developed because of the illegal construction carried on by the accused No. 1 on the fourth floor and the terrace above that. He also constructed a big cement tank and garden with trees and also kept hundreds of flower pots on the terrace.