Binoy Pramodkumar Shah vs Kalusingh Homersingh Rajput & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9640 Bom

pps                                      1 of 3                           34 wp 403-04.doc

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 403 OF 2004 

         Shri Binoy Pramodkumar Shah
         Adult, Occ: Business of
         M/s. Sanskar Developers,
         having office at Shop No.13, 
         Ganesh Bhuvan, 
         Narmada Nagar, 
         Cabin Cross Road,
         Bhayander (E), Dist. Thane                                  ..Petitioner

                        v/s.

         1. Mr.Kalusingh Homersingh Rajput,
             proprietor of M/s. Mewad &
             Rajput Construction Co.,
             Shop No.1, Padmavti Bhavan,
             Cross Road No.5,
             Bhayander (E), Dist Thane.

         2. Shri Shobhnath Yadav,
             having address at C/o.
             National High School,
             Vaishnav Sadan, 
             B.P.Road No.5, Bhayander (E),
             District Thane.                                ..Respondents

         Mr.Sandesh Patil for the Petitioner.
         Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP for the Respondent-State.
           
                                     CORAM :  SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 14, 2017.

JUDGMENT.

1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 3 rd April,

2003 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane, dismissed

pps 2 of 3 34 wp 403-04.doc

the Criminal Revision Application No. 12 of 2003 and thereby

confirmed the order dated 13th December, 2002 in Chapter Case No.

19 of 2002.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

APP for the State. Perused the record. The petitioner herein had

filed an application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and during pendency

of the said application, the petitioner had filed an application under

Section 146(1) of Cr.P.C. By Order dated 13 th December, 2002 the

learned Special Executive Magistrate, upon considering the police

report observed that the disputed structures were already demolished

and no urgent relief was warranted. The learned Special Executive

Magistrate has further observed that he had no power to decide the

issue of title or legality of possession and directed the petitioner

herein to approach the Competent Court to establish his legal rights.

3. The said order was challenged before the learned Sessions

Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the dispute

was basically between two developers. The learned Sessions Judge

has also taken note of the fact that there is no likelihood of breach of

public peace. Considering the nature of dispute between the parties,

the learned Sessions Judge held that it was not a case fit to invoke

pps 3 of 3 34 wp 403-04.doc

provisions of Section 145 of Cr.P.C.

4. It is pertinent to note that the object of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is to

promote speedy and summary remedy when the dispute over

possession of immovable property is likely to cause breach of peace.

It does not confer any powers on the Magistrate to decide the title or

to delve into the legality of possession.

5. Having gone through the nature of the dispute and considering

the scope and object of Section 145 Cr.P.C., in my considered view,

the findings recorded in the impugned order do not warrant any

interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)