Bombay High Court
Smt. Ranjana Mukunda Gedam vs The State Of Mah. Thr. ... on 3 February, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
1 WP12.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 12 OF 2020
Smt. Ranjana Mukunda Gedam
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and anr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
None for petitioner.
Ms. Hemlata Jaipurkar, APP for respondent nos.1 and 2
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED :- 03.02.2021
Nobody is present for the petitioner.
Heard the learned APP appearing for the State.
On going through the copy of FIR available on record, it is
seen that the grievance of the petitioner is that although she had
purchased the subject property, which was also the subject matter of
suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 248/2015 filed by the petitioner
under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the accused by name
Surendra Tambi Pillay, the petitioner was illegally dispossessed by the
defendant Surendra Tambi Pillay.
On the basis of this report, Police Station Yashodhara
Nagar, Nagpur, registered an offence punishable under Section 448 of
I.P.C. against the said accused vide Crime No. 350/2014.
The reply filed by the respondents shows that a detailed
investigation into these allegations has been made by respondent No.2
and the investigation has resulted into a finding that no offence of
2 WP12.20.odt
whatsoever nature has been committed by the accused Surendra
Tambi Pillay and therefore, B-summary report came to be filed before
the jurisdictional Magistrate.
A copy of the judgment delivered in Special Civil Suit No.
248/2015 on 26.04.2018 has been filed on record by the petitioner
herself. It shows that this was the suit filed by the petitioner for
restoration of her possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
In this Civil Suit, there were in all four issues framed, out of which
Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are relevant for the purpose of this petition,
which read thus -
Issue No.1 Does the plaintiff established that she
was in possession of the suit property?
Issue No.2 Does she further prove that she was
dispossessed from the suit property
without her consent and without
following due process of law by the
defendant illegal possession of the
defendant?
Issue No.4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
restoration of possession of the suit
property?
The answer to the first issue is in the affirmative, but the
answer to issue Nos. 2 and 4 is in the negative and thus, the Civil
Court dismissed the suit.
Once the Civil Court has recorded a finding that the
petitioner - the original plaintiff, was not dispossessed from the suit
property without her consent and without following the due process of
law by the accused/defendant and that the petitioner/plaintiff was not
entitled for restoration of possession of the suit property, which is also
the subject matter of the present criminal writ petition, there would be
3 WP12.20.odt
no right in law wasting in a petitioner/plaintiff to raise a grievance
that she was dispossessed in an illegal manner and unauthorizedly,
thereby leading to commission of a cognizable offence.
There is another aspect of the matter which we must say
goes to the root of this dispute, which is basically a civil dispute, tried
to be given a colour of criminality. In paragraph No.27 of the said
judgment delivered in Special Civil Suit No. 248/2015 on 26.04.2018,
the Civil Court has observed that the evidence led by the defendant
has disclosed that he was put in possession of the suit property by the
plaintiff herself. So, this observation along with the findings recorded
to Issue Nos. 2 to 4, referred to above, would clinch the issue in favour
of the accused Surendra Tambi Pillay, who was the defendant in the
said Civil Suit and as such, we have to say that this petition is devoid
of any merit, rather a frivolous one, making an issue, which is nothing.
We are also of the opinion that B-summary report as filed in the
present case has been rightly filed by the Investigating Officer.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
