STATE Vs. RAMIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratlam on an application in revision by the complainant in a case before the First Class Magistrate. The case itself ended in acquittal but the applicant's grievance is in regard to an order passed subsequently, presumably in exercise of inherent power, for maintaining status quo before the starting of the present case to the effect that the complainant should be removed from the house in dispute and the accused persons allowed to re -occupy it. The case raises several important issues regarding the existence and the extent, of inherent power of subordinate criminal Courts, the circumstances in which they can be invoked, and the manner of enquiry necessary before any order under inherent jurisdiction can be passed.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the applicant Ramibai gave first information report to the Police, alleging that the non -applicants Nathu and Kalu, who are father and son, and their wives, all entered her house and, after beating her, turned her out, throwing out whatever properties she had kept there. The Police gave a charge -sheet under Section 452, Indian Penal Code; the case ended in acquittal, the Magistrate's finding being that the complainant was not in possession of the house she has claimed, and was making a false and frivolous charge with a view to getting possession through the criminal Court. As for the criminal Courts are concerned this finding has not been altered in appeal and is still in force.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has made the reference because he was not satisfied, firstly as to the law under which the order has been made, and secondly, whether as a matter of fact, the police did remove the accused persons during the investigation and instal the complainant. Accordingly he has sent this reference suggesting, firstly that Magistrate's order should be set aside, and secondly that the case should be sent back with a direction that an enquiry should be held as to whether the Police had really given the possession of the house to the complainant during the course of investigation. In this Court the complainant has supported the first suggestion but has opposed the second. While the opposite party prayed that the Magistrate's order should be maintained in to and the reference be rejected.