RANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This is a revision filed by the Petitioner, impugning the order dated 1-12-1995 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby the order of the learned Magistrate passed in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been upheld.

(2.) The petitioner's case, as can be seen from the pleas taken before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, as also in this Court, may be summed up thus :

(3.) Smt. Shakuntala Wazir was the original owner of the house in dispute, which has allegedly been purchased by Randeep Singh (Revision-Petitioner) from her. Kapoor Singh, respondent No. 2, in this petition, was occupying its first floor, as her tenant since 1960. However, respondent No. 2 exhibited a hostile attitude towards the petitioner and his family members and on 7-9-1993 he even went to the extent of causing injuries to the members of the family of the petitioner regarding which a case F.I.R. No. 339 of 1993 was got registered against respondent No. 2 in Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu. Prior to the alleged assault, respondent No. 2, on 26-9-1992, had filed a civil suit against the petitioner and Smt. Shakuntala Wazir (Original owner of the disputed premises) for prohibitory injunction restraining them from forcibly evicting him from the disputed premises and in that suit the civil court had directed the concerned parties to maintain status quo till further orders. The petitioner's case further is that he had never any intention to forcibly evict respondent No. 2 from the said premises and during the pendency of the said suit the parties had entered into a compromise on 26-4-1995, in terms of which respondent No. 2 had vacated the tenanted premises in favour of the petitioner, after getting Rs. 50,000/- as consideration and had also agreed not to prosecute his said civil suit and as such the civil suit filed by the respondent No. 2 was dismissed in default on 15-5-1995, which he never got restored. In view of the aforesaid agreement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner got the tenanted premises vacated from the respondent No. 2 on 27-4-1995, shifted his luggage and started living there, along with his family. Petitioner has further pleaded that after having vacated the disputed premises, the respondent No. 2, on being provoked by certain vested elements tried to create mischief, whereupon the petitioner, on 12-8-1995, filed a Civil Suit in the court of Munsiff, Jammu, for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining respondent No. 2 from interferring in his possession over the disputed premises. In that suit the learned Munsiff had issued notice to the respondent No. 2 and had also directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the disputed property. That suit as well as the order of status quo are still alive.