MUKESH SHARMA Vs. U.T. ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, praying for quashing of F.I.R. No. 79, dated 11.05.2008 under Section 188 I.P.C., Police Station Sector-19, Chandigarh, being false, frivolous and misuse of process of law.

(2.) IT has been stated in the petition that the petitioner is owner of barsati portion of H. No. 19, Sector-18-A, Chandigarh, which is a 10 marla house and the first floor and the ground floor are owned by other persons. The barsati portion contains three rooms and had been rented out by the petitioner to five students with effect from 01.03.2008, details of those students is mentioned in para-3 of the petition. Immediately on letting out of the portion to the tenants, the petitioner as per requirement of law, intimated the Chandigarh Administration at e-Sampark Centre, Sector-18, Chandigarh, vide receipts No. 20813686 and 20813687, dated 12.03.2008. He stated that the e-Sampark Centres have been established by the Chandigarh Administration, which provides services to the general public and citizen. The services offered at the e- Sampark Centre had been mentioned on the back side of the receipts itself. At Serial No. 7 of the above mentioned receipts under the heading, the name of the Department "Chandigarh Police" and under the heading the citizen friendly services provided, it has been mentioned as Tenant Registration, Domestic Servants Registration, Payment of General, Sticker and Postal Challan. On the basis of these receipts, it has been stated that the petitioner had complied with the requirement of law as these five students were residing as tenants in the three rooms of barsati portion of House No. 19, Sector-18, Chandigarh. Some outsiders and tenants had a fight in the premises, resulting in registration of F.I.R. No. 78 under Sections 307, 34 I.P.C. dated 11.05.2008 as one of them suffered serious injury. A separate F.I.R. being F.I.R. No. 79 dated 11.05.2008 was registered against the petitioner on the ground that the records of the boys living at the top floor of House No. 19, Sector-18, Chandigarh, checked in the beat box register, but no information was found recorded therein. 4-4 boys and 6-7 boys were living in each rooms, therefore, the petitioner, who is the owner of the barsati portion in question, has violated the order of District Magistrate issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C., vide order No. DM/MA/08/3452, dated 14.03.2008 and, therefore, an offence under Section 188 I.P.C. is found to have been committed by the petitioner. Copy of the F.I.R. is appended as Annexure-P-3.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the assertion of Chandigarh Administration that there were 11 persons residing in the premises in question and that too as paying guest is incorrect. For terming a kothi/house as paying guest, the requirement is that food should also be supplied to the person residing in the premises. It is nowhere the contention of the Chandigarh Administration that the food was being supplied by the petitioner or a separate kitchen was being run for the said purpose in the premises. He on this basis contends the first and foremost requirement, which would bring the persons residing in the accommodation in question as paying guest having not been fulfilled, the F.I.R. is based on totally erroneous basis and is totally false. The requirement for an accommodation to be termed as paying guest accommodation has been clearly spelt out by the information, which has been supplied by Chandigarh Administration to one Shri Amit Roy, a friend of the petitioner, vide information dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure-P-5), wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the the price of food is also charged for and the persons residing in the accommodation cannot run a separate kitchen in the premises. This apart, he relies upon notification dated 14.03.2008 (Annexure-R-1) issued by the District Magistrate under Section 144 Cr.P.C., to contend that the notification itself specifies that the paying guest accommodation involves charging for food and accommodation both and since there is nothing on record to even suggest that such an activity was being carried on by the petitioner nor any money was charged for the food, therefore, the basis for registration of the F.I.R. does not exist and, thus, cannot be sustained. That apart, the petitioner had supplied the required information through e- Sampark Centre, Sector-18, Chandigarh, which has been provided by the Chandigarh Administration for the convenience of citizens and various services are being offered at e-Sampark Centres, for which charges are imposed. He on this basis submits that the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner, is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed as the same is contrary to the notification and the requirement having fulfilled by the petitioner, as per law. He further contends that five students, who were tenants, their information was duly supplied through e-Sampark Centre, Sector-18, Chandigarh, on 12.03.2008 to the Department of Police.