SANJEEV CHOWDHARY Vs. INDERJEET KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of instant petition under Section 561-A CrPC, petitioner calls in question legality and correctness of the order dated 01.02.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jammu in a revision petition titled "Inderjeet Kapoor Vs Sanjeev Choudhary ". To understand the controversy, it is apt to refer to the factual matrix in brief.

(2.) THE shop, which is the subject matter, was given on rent by respondent no.1 to petitioner in 1997. Petitioner was running the business of readymade garments under the name and style of "M/S Bomb Shell " in that shop. As the business of petitioner flourished and he required more space, he obtained the adjoining shop, also belonging to respondent no.1, on rent. No formal rent deeds were executed. Petitioner renovated his shops by converting the same into a single hall with two shutters and set up a show room. Same was inaugurated on 14.04.2002. It is alleged that in June, 2010, respondents started threatening the petitioner with forcible dispossession which compelled him to approach the Civil Court. He filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering into his peaceful possession of the tenanted premises. Allegedly respondents prevailed upon SHO Police Station- Gandhi Nagar, who too started threatening the petitioner. It is alleged that on 12.10.2010, respondents arrived at the shop with professional criminals, trespassed into the demised premises, held the sales-man of petitioner as hostage and decamped with Rs.36,000/- from the cash drawer of the shop along with several garments. Petitioner claims to have approached SHO Police Station - Gandhi Nagar, who instead of taking action against the respondents, took the petitioner into custody and permitted the respondents to raise wall inside the shops of petitioner. Allegedly the petitioner was not let off until the wall was raised in between the shops of petitioner. Petitioner also alleged intimidation at the hands of SHO. He was also forced to seek pre-arrest bail from learned Sessions Judge, Jammu. It is alleged that goods were damaged in the shop and petitioner was not allowed to have access to the shops. Apprehending breach of peace on spot, petitioner approached the Court of learned Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jammu with petition under Section 145 CrPC. Learned Magistrate drew a preliminary order and attached the subject of dispute. Respondents did not contest the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC but preferred a revision petition against the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by learned Sub Judge. The revision petition was heard by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu who accepted the revision petition filed by respondent no.1. The order of attachment passed on the same date was also set aside.

(3.) HEARD the rival sides and perused the Record.