Bombay High Court
Yogacharya Shri Anandji vs Ashok Harish Mehra And Anr on 31 March, 2016
Bench: Ranjit More
wp 1315-10.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2010
Yogacharya Shri Anandji ..Petitioner
v/s.
Mr.Ashok Harish Mehra & Ors. ..Respondents
Yogacharya Shri Anandji, petitioner, present in person.
,Mr.Mohan Pillai for the respondent nos.1 to 3
Mrs. M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 02, 2016.
DATED : MARCH 31, 2016.
JUDGMENT (PER ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
1. The petitioner herein has sought the following reliefs:
"a) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the nature
of mandamus to the State for CID inquiry into this matter for
mis-conduct and manipulation and dereliction of their duty by
the various police officials.
b) To set aside and quash the orders passed by 22 nd
pps 1 of 7
wp 1315-10.doc
Metropolitan Magistrate Court dt. 21st April, 2009 in
C.C.No.14 (I&R) 2008, and the Sessions Court on 8 th
February, 2010 in Cri. Rev. Appln. 811 of 2009, and a
process may be issued to register a case on any terms and
conditions as the Hon'ble Court may deem just, legal and
proper."
2. Heard the petitioner who is present in person, Mr. Pillai, the
learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and the learned APP
for the State.
3. We have perused the records and considered the submissions
advanced by the petitioner as well as by the learned counsel for the
respondents. The petitioner claims that he is running a Yoga
training centre in a rented premises situated on the ground floor of
Plot No.51, Jaihind CHS Ltd., 11 th N.S.Road, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai
400 059. The petitioner has alleged that in an attempt to grab his
establishment/organization, the society removed the sign boards
from the building walls and tried to take control of his training centre
by falsely claiming that the petitioner was an employed tutor in the
pps 2 of 7
wp 1315-10.doc
said yoga training centre started by Jaihind Co-operative Housing
Society. The dispute between the petitioner and the society led to
filing of Civil Suit No.2559 of 1990.
4. The petitioner claims that the Manager and the agents of the
society broke open the premises and took away the rent receipts. This
led to filing of the complaint dated 4.8.1990. The society had also
filed complaint against the petitioner for tresspassing into the
property. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri,
convicted the petitioner. The said order was set aside by judgment
dated 26.6.2000 passed in Criminal Revision Appln. No.42 of 1999.
5. The petitioner has stated that during the pendency of the Civil
and Criminal Litigation, the society fabricated several documents
which have been produced before the Court during the course of
evidence and despite bringing this fact to the notice of the Court, the
learned trial Judge dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. The
petitioner has stated that the Appeal No.87 of 2004 filed by him is
pending before the Small Causes Court.
pps 3 of 7
wp 1315-10.doc
6. The petitioner has stated that the society through its agents and
servants under the guise of renovation removed the belongings of the
petitioner from the premises. The petitioner lodged a complaint
which was registered as N.C. No.1263 of 2004. The petitioner has
further stated that on 8.4.2006 he realized that all his belongings
worth Rs.10 lakhs including wall pasted poster were removed from
the tenanted premises. He had lodged a written complaint to Juhu
Police Station. However, the police did not take any action and
pursuant to several representations made by the petitioner, the
Commissioner of Police transferred the matter to Crime branch.
7. The petitioner has stated that in July 2006 he had filed an
application before the 22nd Metropolitan Magistrate Court under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In the meantime, the petitioner also filed a
Public Interest Litigation alleging that there was a nexus between
Jaihind Society and the police officials and that the land which was
reserved for police quarters was made available to Vasundhara CHS
Ltd, a private society of IPS Officers.
pps 4 of 7
wp 1315-10.doc
8. The petitioner has alleged that oOn 5.11.2007 while copy of the
PIL was being served on the respondent, he found that some of his
belongings such as wooden furniture were placed back in the
premises. The petitioner once again lodged a complaint before
Juhu Police Station. The petitioner has stated that the police refused
to take the said complaint stating that the matter was transferred to
crime branch. The petitioner has stated that 3-4 days later he once
again found that the furniture was removed from the premises. The
petitioner claims that he had informed this fact to the Metropolitan
Magistrate, but instead of issuing process, the Metropolitan
Magistrate ordered enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and
subsequently, by order dated 21.4.2009 the learned Magistrate
dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The revision filed
against the said order has also been dismissed by the Sessions Court
by order dated 8.2.2010.
9. The petitioner claims that the police officers are trying to shield
the rich and mighty for fulfilling their personal objectives. He has
further stated that an attempt is made by the society in connivance
pps 5 of 7
wp 1315-10.doc
with the Mumbai police, to forcibly dispossess him from the tenanted
premises, without due process of law. The petitioner has therefore
filed this petition alleging that there is no equally efficacious remedy,
except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
10. A perusal of the averments made in the petition reveals that
there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the society in
respect of the premises. The civil suit filed by the petitioner has
been dismissed and the appeal is pending adjudication. Hence the
question whether the petitioner is a tenant of the premises or not will
have to be adjudicated in the said civil dispute.
11. The averments made in the petition reveals that the petitioner
has made several unwarranted allegations against the Judicial
Officers, the then Advocate General and the Police Officers. Suffice it
to say that no enquiry can be initiated against the police officers or
any other authority on the basis of such spacious allegations.
pps 6 of 7
wp 1315-10.doc
12. As regards the removal of the movable goods from the alleged
tenanted premises, the learned Sessions Judge, after having perused
the averments made in the complaint, the verification statement, as
well as the police report has arrived at a finding that the applicant
had not given the details of the properties which were allegedly
stolen in the year 2006. Having gone through the said order, we are
not inclined to interfere with the same in the writ jurisdiction.
13.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the petition is without merits and is hereby dismissed.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)
pps 7 of 7
