RAMAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five petitioners have filed this petition praying for under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. Directing the respondents herein to restore to them (petitioners) the possession of the upstairs portion of House No. 1 situated at Asifnagar, Hyderabad, wherefrom they (petitioners) were dispossessed by the police.The relevant facts are as follows:- The first respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Station House Officer, Asifnagar Hyderabad. The second respondent is P. Laxminarayana son of Ramaswamy. The second respondent filed a complaint against the five petitioner before the police. It resulted in an investigation by the investigation Officer (P. W. 5) and a charge-sheet being filed against the five petitioners as five accused in C.C. No. 91/4 of 1961 in the Court of the VIIth City Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate framed charges under Ss. 448 and 457 I. P. C. Against the second accused, Laxamanamurthy alleging trespass by him (A-2) into house No. 12-1-779 in Asifnagar and discharge the other four accused namely, petitioner 1 to 4. Finally, the leaarned Magistrate (who was the successor of the Magistrate who had framed the charge agianst Lakshmanamurthy and discharge the other accused) acquitted Laxmanamurthy. In his judgement, the learned Magistrate directed that the house-hold articles if all they are lying in the Court till now, be restored to the possession of the accused. He did not pass any order as regards the restoration of the possession of the house.(3) The points which arise for decision and on which arguments have been addressed by both sides are:- 1. Whether this Court has power under section 561-A Crl. P. C. To direct restoration of the possession of the house? 2. If so, whether an order of restoration should be passed in this case directing that the petitioners should be put in possession of the house?4. Point No. 1:- Section 561-A Crl P. C. Runs as follows:-

(2.) In Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, 1958,SCR 1226 : (AIR 1958 SC 376) the origin and scope of section 561-A Cr. P. C. Were referred to and explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. They have stated as follows at page 1231 (of SCR) : (at pp. 378-379 of AIR) :-

(3.) It has to be seen whether the order asked for comes within either of the three purposes mentioned under section 561-A. It cannot be said that the relief asked for is necessary to give effect to any order under this Code; nor can it be held that the order is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. The only question is whether the order is necessary otherwise to secure the ends of justice (concerned in Point No. 2). I find on this point that the High Court has got inherent power under section 561-A, Criminal procedure Codeto order redelivery of possession in this case if it is necessary to secure the ends of justice.