ADARSH GUPTA Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dtd. 1/7/2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Akhnoor (hereinafter to be referred as learned Magistrate) in the proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner against the respondents whereby the application of the petitioner has been dismissed. Challenge has also been thrown to order dtd. 29/12/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (for short, the revisonal Court) whereby the order passed by the learned Magistrate has been upheld in a revision petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Before coming to the present proceedings, it will be necessary to give a brief background of the facts leading to filing of the present petition under Sec. 561-A of J&K Cr.P.C. (482 Cr.P.C).

(3.) It appears that the petitioner presented a petition under Sec. 145 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jammu which came to be assigned to the Court of learned Magistrate, Akhnoor. In the petition, the petitioner claimed that he is owner of a shop situated at Akhnoor which came to his share by way of a memorandum of family settlement dtd. 6/6/1996. It was further contended that in the year 1979, the said shop was leased out by brother of the petitioner to Satish Chander and Pardeep Kumar by execution of a rent deed, whereafter on 8/7/1980, another rent deed was executed by brother of the petitioner in respect of the shop in question in favour of Satish Chander only, who paid rent of shop to the father of the petitioner upto 31/12/2006. Further case of the petitioner was that on 15/1/2007, Satish Chander handed over the shop to the petitioner. The respondents forcibly put up their locks over the shop in question though shop was already locked by the petitioner. It was alleged that respondents No. 2 and 3 along with some musclemen locked the said shop on 3/6/2007. This was resisted by the petitioner and his other relatives and at the instance of respondents, one of the associates of the petitioner was implicated in proceedings under Sec. 107/151 of Cr.P.C. It was further alleged that the respondents with the aid and assistance of Police and political support broke open the door of the shop in question and replaced it with a new door. On the basis of the aforesaid assertions, the petitioner claimed that there was apprehension of breach of peace on spot and, accordingly, he prayed for initiation of proceedings under Sec. 145 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate.