GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. MINI GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard day-before-yesterday. I have heard further submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 today. When the Revision Application was taken up for hearing on the last date, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were put to notice that the Revision Application will be decided finally.

(2.) THE Applicant-company filed an Application before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai, under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as "the said Code"). The Application was originally filed against one Shantilal Bhatia and one Vinod Bhatia. On the application made by the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 herein, they were impleaded as parties to the Application by the learned Magistrate. On the application made by the Applicants on 7th May 2003, a preliminary order under section 145(1) of the said Code was passed directing the Respondents in the Application to attend the Court on 12th June 2003 and to file written statement of their respective claims in respect of possession of the subject matter of the Application. The present Respondents applied under section 145(5) of the said Code for cancellation of the preliminary order passed under sub-section (1) of section 145 of the said Code. By order dated 12th February 2004, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12th February 2004, the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 herein filed a Revision Application under section 397 of the said Code to the Sessions Court. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 3rd July 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, the Revision Application was allowed and the order passed under sub-section (1) of section 145 of the said Code in favour of the Applicant was set aside.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 submitted that a dispute as regards the property in question is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and on the basis of the orders passed by the said Tribunal the property has been attached and it is put to sale. He submitted that the property in question was never in exclusive possession of the Applicant as the Applicant was admittedly given only one key out of the two keys of the lock. He submitted that as the Applicant was not in exclusive possession, the application at the instance of the Applicant under section 145(1) of the said Code was not maintainable. He has placed reliance on certain decisions of this Court and other High Courts and submitted that the said decisions were placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who has not adverted to the same. He submitted that unless it was shown that there was a threat of breach of peace in the area, proceedings under section 145(1) cannot be entertained. He submitted that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and it has to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. He submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have recalled the order passed under section 145(1) of the said Code.