M.M. MENON Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Mundargi for the Petitioner and Mrs. Pawar, APP, for the State.

(2.) THIS application is filed by the petitioners against whom a complaint under Sections 448, 454, 425, 427 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. has been registered under C.R. No. 241/96 at Bundgarden Police Station. The said complaint is filed by Yashpal Mittoo who is a tenant is respect of the premises where the tresspass is alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. The Petitioner No.1 is sub-tenant in respect of the premises. The civil suit is pending in the Court of Small Causes at Pune being Civil Suit No. 338/96 where the petitioner no. 1 is defendant no.4. The said suit was filed by the landlord.

(3.) THIS is essentially a civil dispute. In any event the custodial interrogation is not necessary so this application for anticipatory bail could not be rejected. No heinous offence is committed. Infact, the dispute between the complainant and the petitioners is essentially a civil dispute. The proper orders for restoration or possession can be obtained from the civil court.