RATNATRAYA HEAT EXCHANGERS LTD Vs. LOKENDAR NATH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against order dated 19.5.1994 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, whereby Lokendar Nath Sharma, respondent No. 1 who was sent to stand trial under Sections 452/427/420/506 IPC in FIR No. 178, dated 22.2.1994, P.S. Sadar, Gurgaon, has been discharged.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that petitioner company namely Ratnatrya Heat Exchangers Limited is engaged in the manufacturing of Radiators and automobile parts. The factory premises where the aforesaid items are being manufactured, is situate at No. 468-469, Udyog Vihar, Phase 3, Dundahera. The same was taken on rent from its owner namely Lokendar Nath Sharma on payment of Rs. 12000/- per month as rent. The owner of the premises was impressing upon the company to purchase the premises at a very exorbitant price to which the company showed its inability. The owner of the premises started threatening the petitioner-company to dispossess it forcibly. Apprehending forcible dispossession, the company filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Lokendar Nath Sharma from dispossessing the petitioner forcibly from the premises. In the said suit, the Sub Judge 1st Class, Gurgaon, restrained Lokendar Nath Sharma from dispossessing the company except in due course of law. It is further the case of the company that after the grant of ad-interim injunction on 5.1.1994, the owner of the said premises sold the premises to one Paramjit Singh Bahia, partner of M/s. Kenny Exports, B1/11, Basant Vihar, New Delhi vide registered sale-deed dated 7.1.1994. Since the company was running the business in the aforesaid premises, the possession of the premises could not be delivered to the subsequent vendee. In order to take possession from the petitioner-company, Lokendar Nath Sharma and Paramjit Singh accompanied by 50 persons came to the factory premises on 9.1.1994 at about 5.30 P.M. and threatened the officials of the company to vacate the premises or they would be thrown out forcibly. They also threatened that any person trying to resist them would be done to death. The Company showed the injunction order and requested them not to interfere, but Lokendar Nath Sharma and others entered the factory premises and started throwing the raw materials such as Radiator, furniture and Air Conditioners etc., outside the factory premises and thereby caused extensive damage to the goods owned by the company. Again on the next day, i.e. 10.1.1994, Lokendar Nath Sharma and Paramjit Singh along with 20-25 persons came to the factory premises and the goods of the company were thrown out forcibly. The officials of the company though made oral complaints as well as sent various telegrams to various police authorities and other officers, but no action was taken in the matter. The company finding no response moved an application before the trial Court for the appointment of a Local Commissioner. The Local Commissioner inspected the premises on 11.1.1994 and found various articles lying scattered in the compound of the factory premises and on the road outside the factory premises. Local Commissioner also observed that the machinery of the company was lying scattered in such a manner as if the same had been thrown without taking any care of the same. It is further the case of the company that a complaint in writing was made to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon, and on the basis of said complaint, a case was ordered to be registered against the accused persons under Sections 452/427/120-B and 420, IPC. In pursuance of the registration of the case, the police recorded the statements of various persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including that of the accused persons and ultimately presented the case against Lokendar Nath Sharma, while showing the name of Paramjit Singh in column No. 2.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate are based on surmises and conjectures. He contended that the trial Magistrate was not to view the case from the angle of conviction or acquittal at the time of framing of the charges. The accused was required to be proceeded against in case a prima facie case had been made out against him. In answer to these submissions, Mr. R.S. Ghai, Sr. Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that since the Civil Court is seized of the matter, the trial Magistrate was right in discharging the accused. He further contended that in view of agreed order of this Court dated 11.7.1995 in C.O.C.P. No. 1320 of 1994, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.