BINA DAS Vs. LAXMAN JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the "Code") with a prayer to quash the order passed in I.C.C. No. 3 of 1994 in taking cognizance of an offence under Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the "Act") by the learned Special Judge, Cuttack.

(2.) THE brief fact leading to this application is that the present opposite party, who admittedly belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, is the owner of a residential house which was let out to one Jagannath Jena, who was occupying the said house as a monthly tenant initially on a monthly rental of Rs. 60/ -, and ultimately rent was increased to Rs. 150/ - per month. The present opposite party was residing and working at Bhubaneswar and not coming to Cuttack. Taking advantage of his absence, Jagannath Jena vacated the aforesaid premises and sub -let the same to the present Petitioner without the knowledge and consent of the Opposite party. As the house in question had been occupied by a stranger, i. e. the present Petitioner, who was not authorised to occupy the same since there was no privity of contract between the Petitioner and the opposite party, the present opposite party issued a lawyer's notice to the said Jagannath Jena, who in turn replied that the disputed premises is still under his occupation, though in fact the said house, was occupied by the present Petitioner. Finding no other alternative, the opposite party filed a suit for eviction before the court of learned Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in T.S. No. 26 of 1989, wherein Jagannath Jena and the present Petitioner were arrayed, as Defendants. In the suit the present Petitioner remained ex -parte whereas Jagannath Jena contested the suit. The suit was decreed ex parte against the present Petitioner and was dismissed against Jagannath Jena. As against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present opposite party filed T.A. No, 11 of 1992 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. Ultimately as stated by the learned Counsel for the opposite party, the Petitioner filed an application before the trial court to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her in the suit.

(3.) THE case of the Petitioner is that during pendency of the civil proceeding, this complaint petition has been instituted with a motive to harass the Petitioner and the factum of wrongful possession is still pending for adjudication before the competent civil court and determination of the same in a criminal court would amount to pre -emption of a civil proceeding. At this stage, it is profitable to quote the provisions of Section 3( l)(iv) of the Act; which reads thus: