R K ANAND Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule in revision has been obtained by Shri R. K. Anand, Administrator, Municipal Corporation and seven others, against the order of the learned Chief Justice Magistrate, in a case under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the learned Magistrate has admitted the complaint of one Joginder Singh and has issued process against the petitioners under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts of the case which give rise to this petition may briefly be stated.

(2.) ONE Joginder Singh filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, wherein he made allegations that he was in occupation of a certain stall situate within the court-yard of the property known as Albion House. The Mall, Simla. He used to sell dried and fresh fruits as retail business at the stall. The Municipal Corporation wanted to remove the construction as, according to them, it was unauthorised. Accordingly, on the night between 11th and 12th August, 1971 Shri R. K. Anand, Administrator, Municipal Corporation, along with his Executive Officer. Chief Sanitary Inspector, Engineer, Health Officer, Overseer and Architect, who are all accused in this case, appeared on the scene and forcibly removed the construction and further misappropriated the articles of the Stall which, according to the complainant, were of a value of Rs, 8, 000/- In this manner, according to the complainant, the eight accused have committed the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IT was further contended by the complainant Joginder Singh, that having come to know about the intentions of the Municipal Corporation, he had filed a civil suit in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge. Simla. In that suit he submitted an application under 0. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the- Civil Procedure Code. As submitted by the complainant, he was granted some interim injunction by the Court whereby the Municipal Corporation was restrained from taking forcible possession over his retail Stall. It is contended that the petitioner-accused, despite the order of the Civil Court made a forcible entry inside the Stall and not only removed the construction, but also misappropriated the articles kept therein. The respondent complainant also filed some contempt application with which we are not concerned in these proceedings.