DINESH CHADHA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this criminal revision is aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shimla (Urban) whereby shop in dispute is ordered to be opened and handed over to respondents 2 and 3 holding them "real user as well as possessor", till the final adjudication of the case. Accordingly, S.H.O., Sadar, Shimla was directed to hand over the possession of the shop to respondents 2 and 3 in the presence of Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar) Shimla (Urban) and prepare an inventory. It is also ordered that parties will be bound by any order passed by the Civil Court in the civil suit pending between them.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on receipt of Kalandra preferred by the Incharge, Police Post, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, the Sub Divisional Magistrate started proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and passed order dated 15.3.1999 under sub section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. summoning the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 on 30.3.1999 and to put in written statement of their respective claims in respect of the fact of actual possession of shop No. 1 -A Mina Bazar, Shimla over which they were having dispute which was likely to cause a breach of peace within the local limits of his jurisdiction. -The petitioner appeared on 30.3.1999 but instead of filing his written statement he submitted affidavits of the neighbours, whereas, respondents 2 and 3 filed the reply to the notices issued to them. The owner of the premises in dispute Smt. Jeeti Mumick preferred an application for impleading her as party in the proceedings and placed on record a copy of the order dated 18.3.1999 whereby interim order was passed against the petitioner restraining him from subletting shop No, 3 to any other person till the next date of hearing in the civil suit filed by her. In respect of shop No. 1 -A, which is subject matter of the present revision petition, no order was passed for the reason that it stood already subject to respondents 2 and 3. Thereafter, Sub Divisional Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties on the point of "opening of the disputed shop" and passed the impugned order on 11.5.1999 and thereafter adjourned the case for filing reply by the petitioner.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that from the material on record the Sub Divisional Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner had entered into a secret deal with respondents 2 and 3 with regard to sub -letting of shop No. 1 -A in the year 1988 but in the beginning of this year respondent No. 1 (the present petitioner) broke the deal and tried to take possession forcibly from respondents 2 and 3 on 13.3.1999. Though, he has noticed that the petitioner had yet to file reply to the notice served upon him where after further proceedings would be carried on in accordance with law, yet he thought it proper to order handing over the possession of the shop in dispute in favour of respondents 2 and 3 as an interim measure.