SHANTARAM RAMCHANDRA PAWASKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point for consideration in this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code) is the legality or otherwise of a Metropolitan Magistrates refusal to revoke orders purporting to fall under sub-section (1) of sections 145 and 146 of the Code.

(2.) ROOM No. 29, Sukh Sadan, Denawadi---hereinafter referred to as "room No. 29" was in the occupation of Radhabai surve as a tenant. Radhabai lived in the room with her son Dattatraya. The mother and son having died, a dispute arose between two factions referred to as "parties Nos. 1 and 2". Party No. 1 claimed to be a sub-tenant of Radhabai residing in the room and doing business in pickles. Party No. 2 claimed to have become entitled to use the room by virtue of having performed the obsequies of Dattatraya. The L. T. Marg Police Station on 31st December, 1990 submitted a report in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 28 pleading that room No. 29 had become a bone of contention between the two parties, that party No. 1 had lodged a report against party No. 2 on 14-9-1990, that the said party was in possession upto 13-9-1990 and that both the parties were bent upon taking recourse to force to have their own way in respect of the possession of the room. The Police Station therefore, sought orders for sealing of the room until the learned Magistrate could rule upon either partys entitlement to possession. The learned Magistrate on 17-1-1991 made orders falling under sections 14 (1) and 146 (1) of the Code. The parties submitted their written statements. The case of party No. 1 was that he was in lawful possession of the room, that partyno. 2 had forcibly taken possession on or about 13-9-1990 and that party No. 1 was entitled to restoration of possession. This version was accepted by the Police Station sponsoring the proceeding. Party No. 2, apart from other submissions, contended that the proceedings be dropped as on the showing of the Police Station and party No. 1 themselves, the dispossession of party No. 1 had taken place on 13-9-1990 i. e. , more than two months prior to the moving of the Magsitrate by the sponsoring Police Station. In reply, party No. 1 contended that he had moved the police on the day next after being forcibly evicted from room No. 29. It was not his fault that the police submitted a report more than two months after 14-9-1990. The delay occasioned by the police did not come in the way of his entitlement to restoration of possession under the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 145. This contention having been sustained by the learned Magistrate, party No. 2 has moved this Court under section 482 of the Code.

(3.) COUNSEL representing the parties re-agitate the stands taken by them before the learned Magistrate. The point is not free from difficulty and I had best begin with a scrutiny of sections 145 and 146 to the extent relevant for the purposes of this judgment.