RANA BALRAM Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in this revision petition filed by Rana Balram are as follows. On the 28th of december, 1959, the respondent Pritam Singh as Secretary of the Managing Committee of the institution known as Arya Vedic Pathashala, Arya Nagar, Paharganj, Delhi, filed an application in the Court of Mr. Sham Behari Lal, Magistrate 1st Class, under Section 145, Criminal procedure Code. In this application he stated that the institution was receiving financial aid to the extent of 90 per cent from the Delhi Municipal Corporation, which had approved the managing Committee of which the petitioner was the Secretary, and that the school building was in physical possession of the Managing Committee and that on the previous day, the 27th of december, 1959, a case had been registered under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, as the paharganj Police Station against the present petition Rama Balram and others on a report made by the petitioner.

(2.) IT was further stated that the school, which had been running for about 30 years, was attended by 500 boys and girls and that the current session was going on and the school was to open on 2nd of January, 1960, after the winter holidays and that the staff of the school required access to the documents of various kinds lying in the building. It was therefore prayed that the petitioner be allowed peaceful possession of the building which had been disturbed by the action of the persons named in the report made to the police the previous day, and that the Paharganj police be directed to take necessary action to enable the school to run smoothly. Apparently a copy of the letter from the Corporation approving the appointment of the Managing Committee was attached with the application on which, the learned Magistrate recorded the following order:

(3.) IT appears that in these circumstances within an house or so, a second application was filed in which the present petitioner and two other persons who had been mentioned as named in the report to the police were now named as respondents. This second application is essentially the same as the first but a few more averments were made. It was no alleged that the three respondents named in the application had committed a criminal trespass the previous day and that a case, had been registered under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, on the complaint of the applicant. It was again mentioned that the staff of the school required access to the papers lying in the building it no which the respondents had trespassed and it was now stated that the respondents had threatened the petitioner with dire consequence and would not allow him and the teachers to enter of a breach of the peace in respect of the school building. It was therefore prayed that the property be attached and its possession be given to the applicant till the final decision of the application.