Delhi High Court
Shri Jagmohan Singh & Anr. vs State & Ors. on 6 February, 2012
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.No. 447/2012
Date of Decision : 06.02.2012
SHRI JAGMOHAN SINGH & ANR. ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Adv.
Versus
STATE & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the
petitioners for quashing of proceedings under Section 145
Cr.P.C. and the order dated 05.01.2012 passed by the Sub
Division Magistrate, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the filing of
the present petition are that a complaint is purported to
have been made by Ajay Kumra, Amit Kumra and Rishi
Crl. M.C. No.447/2012 Page 1 | 8
Kumra, sons of Late Shri Subhash Kumra, R/o 8908, Shidi
Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which is recorded vide D.D.
No. 31 PP on 28.12.2011. In this complaint, the
complainants have stated that they are the owners of the
property bearing No.8941/14-B, Siddhipura, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005, which originally belonged to their
grandfather, Dharmveer Verma, who had allegedly inducted
Sardar Jagmohan Singh as the tenant in respect of the said
premises, on a monthly rent of Rs.14,000/-, to be used for
the purpose of carrying out his business under the name
and style of M/s India Product. It is alleged in the complaint
that after the death of Dharmveer Verma, the petitioner
no.1/Jagmohan Singh is alleged to have stopped the
business and illegally inducted his son Amarjeet Singh,
(who is complete stranger to the property) to occupy the
same, who is purported to have started the business in the
above mentioned premises under the name and style of
M/s.Mayur Enterprises. It has also been alleged that the
respondents herein asked Amarjeet Singh to vacate the suit
property and handover its peaceful vacant possession to
Crl. M.C. No.447/2012 Page 2 | 8
them whereupon they have been refusing to do the same.
On the contrary, it was alleged that the father and the son
have illegally and conveniently been usurping the property.
It is alleged in the complaint that Sardar Jagmohan is the
President of a Merchant Association and is having a team of
well armed miscreants and with the help of these henchmen
he is restraining the respondents from approaching the suit
property. It is stated that the petitioners wanted to avoid
any confrontation.
3. On the basis of this complaint, the Sub Inspector of the
concerned police station made an inquiry and filed a
Kalandra under Section 145 Cr.P.C., wherein he opined that
there was an apprehension of breach of peace because of
the dispute regarding the occupation of the premises in
question. A Kalandra under Section 145 Cr.P.C was
prepared and the same was filed with the SDM along with
the requisite statement of the complainants and the other
documents prepared during inquiry. It was placed before
Sh.Girish Pandey, SDM (Karol Bagh) and he passed an
order on 05.01.2012 directing the appearance of the
Crl. M.C. No.447/2012 Page 3 | 8
petitioners before him on 11.01.2012 at 2.30 P.M. A fresh
order was passed for appearance on 25.01.2012 of the
petitioners on the allegation that Jagmohan Singh and
Taran Deep Singh have illegally possessed the property in
question and since there was an apprehension of breach of
peace, they were required to show cause as to why the
orders may not be passed against them.
4. In the meantime, the parties were also directed to maintain
the status quo regarding the possession and also keep
peace in the area. It is not clear from the petition as to
whether on 25.01.2012, the petitioner appeared before the
learned SDM or not.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the aforesaid Kalandra and the order of
summoning dated 05.01.2012 passed by the learned SDM
is without any application of mind in as much as there is no
dispute about the possession of the shop in question and
further there is a litigation pending between the parties with
regard to the suit property. In this regard, the learned
counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the
Crl. M.C. No.447/2012 Page 4 | 8
Court towards certain documents like the petition under
Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act by M/s.Mayur
Enterprises seeking permission to deposit the rent in Court,
as it was allegedly stated by them that the
respondents/landlords were not accepting the rent.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
perused the record.
7. Section 145 Cr.P.C. lays down an elaborate procedure
whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied by a report of
a police officer or upon any other information that a dispute
likely to cause a breach of peace concerning any land or
water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction,
he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his
being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in
such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on
a specified date and time, and to put in written statements
of their respective claims in respect of the actual possession
of the suit property. This is evident from the reading of sub
clause 4, 5 and 6 of the Section 145 Cr.P.C. In the instant
case, the entire contention of the learned counsel for the
Crl. M.C. No.447/2012 Page 5 | 8
petitioners is that there was no occasion for the SDM to
issue the process against them on account of the fact that
they are in actual possession of the property in question.
Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that the
petitioners are not in possession of the property in question
that in itself does not guarantee that there could be no
occasion for breach of peace. There are rival claims made
by the opposite parties in as much as the petitioners are
claiming their possession in the shop in question to be
lawful while as the respondents/complainants are alleging
that the petitioners have illegally obtained the possession of
the shop and are trying to grab the property. It is also
alleged by them that the petitioners are preventing not only
the access of the respondents to approach the property in
question but also threatening them with dire consequences.
Obviously, in case these are the facts alleged by the rival
parties and there is every likelihood that there will be a
breach of peace then this need to be addressed by the
SDM, who is duly authorized by law in this regard. So far as
the defence of the petitioners that they are in lawful
Crl. M.C. No.447/2012 Page 6 | 8
possession of the property or that there is no apprehension
of breach of peace is concerned, this can be shown by them
only during the course of inquiry by the SDM, in terms of
sub clause 6 of the Section 145 Cr.P.C., whereupon, the
learned Magistrate can pass an appropriate order and if the
petitioners still feel aggrieved they can go to an appropriate
forum seeking redressal of their grievance. In the instant
case, the petitioners, at the threshold itself, have tried to
convert the High Court into a Court of fact finding as to
whether there exists a ground for breach of peace
warranting an inquiry to be made by the SDM or not. I feel
that this cannot be permitted to be done. The petitioners
have an alternative efficacious remedy available to them, to
approach the SDM and show their defence, rather than to
file the present petition assailing not only the Kalandra but
also prima facie the summoning order for which I feel that
there is sufficient evidence. I feel that there was sufficient
prima facie evidence before the SDM to form an opinion
about reasonable apprehension that there could be a breach
of peace in case the matter was not attended by the police.
Crl. M.C. No.447/2012 Page 7 | 8
8. I, accordingly, feel that the present petition is totally
misconceived and the same is dismissed leaving the
petitioners to approach the learned SDM to conclude the
inquiry. Stay stands vacated, if any.
V.K. SHALI,J
FEBRUARY 06, 2012
KP
Crl. M.C. No.447/2012 Page 8 | 8
