MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 16.12.91of Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, passed in Cri. Revision No. 117/91, whereby the order Of S.D.M., affirming the possession of the non -applicant has been maintained. The brief history of the case is that the father of the petitioner was a worker with non -applicant No. S.1&2. He expired. The petitioner was in possession of the accommodation as an heir of the earlier worker. It is alleged that non -applicants 1 and 2 forcibly took possession of the house an 1.11.87 and therefore a report was made to the police. The proceedings under S. 145 of Cr.P.C. were started.

(2.) THE contention of the non -applicants was that the petitioner voluntarily handed aver the possession an 31.10.87. The S.D.M. during enquiry recorded the evidence adduced by the parties and ultimately found that the possession was handed aver by the petitioner to the non -applicants 1 and 2 who are said to' be the owners of the house. The revision against the said order was filed before the Sessions Judge who dismissed it vide order referred above. Hence, this petition u/S 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) AS against it learned counsel for the State has submitted that the 2nd revision is barred u/S 397 (3) Cr.P.C. and therefore despite certain mistakes having been committed by the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge this petition would not be maintainable.