MANISHA SANTOSH CHHAJED Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitions are filed under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar on applications filed under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner and respondent No.2. The Judicial Magistrate First Class has directed to hand over the possession of two shop premises during pendency of the trial to present respondent No.2 - Jitendra Shantilal Chhajed on execution of bond of rupees three lakhs. Some conditions are imposed on him to prevent him from alienating the property or for creating interests of any third party in the property. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) The petitioner, Smt. Manisha Chhajed, gave report to Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar on 24-5- 2011. She contended that the two shop premises owned by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Ahmednagar were given to her husband by the APMC and after the death of her husband, she is entitled to occupy the two shop premises as a successor of her husband. It is contended that her name is also entered in the record of the APMC in that regard. It is her case that she was in possession of the shop premises and she had put her locks on the shop premises. It is her case that she married with a person from Pune and so she shifted to Pune on 9-7- 2010. It is her case that when she visited the shop premises on 24-5-2011, she found that the locks put on the premises were not there and the respondent No.2- Jitendra Shantilal Chhajed had illegally taken possession of the shop premises behind her back and he was doing business of grain merchant in the shops. Respondent No.2 - Jitendra is brother of her previous husband Santosh and she has contended that, the respondent No.2-Jitendra said that she has no concern with the shop premises.

(3.) Criminal Misc. Application No.672/2011 was filed by petitioner Smt. Manisha and Criminal Misc. Application No.940/2011 was filed by respondent No.2 Jitendra for interim possession of the property. After hearing both the sides the orders under challenge came to be made. The Judicial Magistrate has considered relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") from Chapter XXXIV and has held that the shop premises was given to Shantilal, father of Jitendra and Santosh, and so it cannot be said that Jitendra had no concern with the property or that he is not entitled to get the possession when he was found in possession on the date of seizure.