SUSHILA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioners are the purchasers of the different holdings situated on the alleged leasehold land. The prayer of the petitioners is for quashing of the investigation in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 371/1995 instituted on the basis of the first information report by the informant the Assistant Administrator of the Patna Municipal Corporation. The sum and substance of the allegation is that the holdings inquestion, were leased out to the then Patna Administration Committee - the predecessor of the Patna Municipal Corporation for a period of 35 years. Subsequently, the Patna Administration Committee executed a deed of lease in favour of several persons including one Mirza Muzatab for a period of 35 years with option of renewal for the purpose of construction of the shops by the lessee who admittedly made several constructions over the plot inquestion. Initially the petitioner No.1 Smt. Sushila Srivastava was inducted as tenant on plot No. 22 subsequently by a deed of lease the said property was assigned to the petitioner by a registered deed dated 17 -1 -1987 and accordingly, the name of the petitioner was mutated with respect to the land by the Patna Municipal Corporation, which is apparent from annexure -1 to the writ application. The petitioner and other shop owners apprehending demolition of their shop by respondents authority, filed a writ application C.W.J.C. No. 10476/1995 praying there in for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents authority not to demolish the construction made over the leasehold property. This Court vide its interim order dated 1 -12 -1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10476 of 1995 restrained the authority from demolishing the constructions made over the land inquestion and ultimately the said writ application was allowed. Surprisingly on the next date i.e., 2 -12 -1995 the Assistant

(2.) I failed to understand as to how the petitioner who are the purchasers of the property inquestion, can be prosecuted for the alleged breach of the terms and conditions of the said lease deed. That apart in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the first information report where from it appears that even if the allegation made in the first information report is taken on its face value, in my view, no criminal offence is made, much less the offence alleged against the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that the allegation made in the first information report is taken on its entirety, if no offence is made out, this Court can interfere with the investigation and quash the proceeding. Reference may be made to the decision in the case of State of U.P.C.B.I.S.P.E. Lucknow V/s. R.K. Srivastava and another. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the very initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the Court and accordingly, it is quashed. However, before I part with the case I may observe that the respondent authority, if so, advised, may proceed in accordance with law for taking possession of the property inquestion in accordance with law.