MARIA ZAZARTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code whereby the judgment dated 7th April, 1984, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panjim, is being challenged.

(2.) A few facts are necessary for the understanding and disposal of this case. The petitioner is the owner of a building where a hotel known as Hotel Diwar is installed. It appears that the respondents No. 2 to 5 had been occupying some rooms in the said hotel and a dispute arose between the petitbner and the said respondents in respect of the said rooms. As a result of this dispute, the said respondents approached the poHce with a complaint that there would be likelihood of breach of peace on account of the said dispute. However, the Police did not take any action and therefore, the same respondents filed a suit against the petitioner on 8-11-83 and at the same time, an application for injunction was moved. The said injunction was refused and thereafter, a fresh application for injunction was moved by the said respondents on 18-11-83. Exparte injunction was rejected and a show cause notice was given to the petitioner. After she files her reply, the learned Civil Judge was pleased to reject also the fresh application for injunction on 21st November, 1983. In the meanwhile; the said respondents moved an application to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Panjim, alleging that there was likelihood of breach of peace on account of the same dispute. The learned Magistrate issued a preliminary order on 3rd November, 1983, under Section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner filed her reply on 8-11-1983 and on 23rd November, 1983, she filed a representation bringing to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that a suit was pending and that the applications for injunction filed by the respondents No. 2 to. 5 had been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. On the very next day, i.e. on 24.11.1983. the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order under Section 146 Criminal Procedure Code and appointed a receiver to six rooms existing in the said building. In the said order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate stated that it was on the basis of a fresh application filed by the respondents that she was convinced that there was likelihood of breach of peace and that it was necessary to appoint a receiver.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order of the SubDivisional Magistrate, Panjim, the petitioner herein filed a revision application to the Sessions Judge, Panjim, who by the impugned order dated 7th April, 1984 dismissed it.