MANPREET SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') in which the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure P5) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Magistrate') with a further prayer for issuance of necessary directions to respondent nos.1 to 3 to register an F.I.R. against respondent no.4 on the basis of the complaint which was preferred by him under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of the Magistrate.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased Shop No.119, Old Ropar Road, Mansa Devi Chowk, Mani Majra vide a registered sale deed dated 18.2.2005. Somewhere in the middle of February,2008 when the petitioner visited the aforesaid premises, he found that respondent no.4 had illegally trespassed into the same and was occupying it. All attempts by the petitioner to get the shop in question vacated proved futile forcing him to file a complaint, which is annexed as Annexure P3 before the Magistrate invoking her power under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Magistrate referred the matter to the concerned official of the Police, who purportedly investigated the matter and submitted a report which was accepted by her resulting in passing of the impugned order in which she held that no offence was said to have been made out and respondent no.4 was a tenant in the shop in question. This has actuated the grievance of the petitioner and has compelled him to file the instant petition in which the impugned order has been questioned on the following grounds:-

(3.) Respondent no.1 to 3 have filed a reply in which they have stated that the matter was investigated into and they came to a conclusion that respondent no.4 was a tenant on the premises in question. During the course of arguments, when questioned by the Court as to what was the material to suggest that respondent no.4 was a tenant, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 contended that the only material which they had collected was in the shape of statements of few persons, who were occupying shops in the vicinity. However, he candidly admitted that no material in the shape of rent note and rent receipts or the account books of respondent no.4 were examined to see whether any rent had been paid and was accepted by the petitioner.