Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Kumar Mehrotra vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 3309 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19103 of 2023
        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2014 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna
     ======================================================

AJAY KUMAR @ AJAY KUMAR MEHROTRA S/O LATE PROF. BAIDYA NATH R/O NEW DAKBUNGALOW ROAD, P.O- GPO, P.S- GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTT.- PATNA, 800001

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar BIHAR

2. RAJENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE MELA RAMJHI R/O FLAT NO. 201, IN-

DRAPRASTHA APARTMENT, WEST BORING CANAL ROAD, NEAR PETROL PUMP, PIN CODE-800001, DISTT.- PATNA (BIHAR)

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr.Saket Gupta
     For the Opposite Party/s:       Mr.Shyameshwar Dayal

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-07-2023

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional

Public Prosecutor.

2. This application is filed on behalf of the petitioner above

named seeking quashing of the order dated 03.09.2019 passed in

General Register No. 2583 of 2014 arising out of Gandhi Maidan

P.S. Case No. 164 of 2014 whereby and where under the Addi-

tional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XIV, Patna has been pleased to

take cognizance for offence punishable under Sections 452, 341,

323, 504, 506, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The Prosecution story in short is that the informant is the

tenant of the petitioner and was doing a small business under Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19103 of 2023 dt.27-07-2023

the name and style of M/S Harjit Automobiles situated at New

Dak Bungalow Road, Patna since last 37 years.

4. It is further alleged by the learned counsel for the peti-

tioner that informant was harassed by the petitioner. More-

over, on 26.04.2014 at around 3 P.M. two men entered the cabin

of the informant and abused him and warned that if he will not va-

cate the premises then he has to pay Rs. 10 lakhs and have to

face consequences. Once petitioner along with his two sons

attacked the informant and threatened him. Informant alleges

that he has been regularly paying rent and on asking for receipt,

he was threatened to vacate the premises.

5. He further submits that subsequent to the institution of

the FIR, the police conducted the investigation and submitted

charge sheet vide Final Form No. 365 of 2019 dated

31.07.2019 under offences punishable under Section 452, 341,

323, 524, 506, 387, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner next submits

that pursuant to the above, the Court of learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate-XIV, Patna by order impugned has been

pleased to take cognizance for offences punishable under Sections

452, 341, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

and further pleased to direct issuance of summons to the Peti- Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19103 of 2023 dt.27-07-2023

tioner.

7. He further submits that the petitioner is innocent, has

committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in the

present case. No occurrence has ever taken place as alleged in the

FIR. The allegations made in the FIR are evidently baseless and

are actuated by mala-fides. At the outset, it is submitted that the

informant was the tenant of the Petitioner.

8. He further alleges that on 01.06.1966 the lease of the

premises was given to "Harjit Singh of M/S Harjit Trading Corpo-

ration, Kasmiri Gate New Delhi by the Petitioner. The lease

premises consisted of one room being a portion of building

bearing Holding no. 28, Circle no. 6 having measurement of

19'6*14' situated on New Dakbungalow Road, Patna.

9. He next submits that the petitioner namely Ajay Kumar

inherited this property from his father and is now the owner of the

property. The father of the Petitioner died on 30.10.1993.

10. Thereafter he submits that the petitioner namely Ajay

Kumar has not executed any lease deed with regard to this

property with the Opposite Party No. 2 or anyone else. The

Opposite Party No. 2 is no relative of "Harjit Singh i.e. the

proprietor of M/s Harjit Trading Corporation, Kasmiri Gate New

Delhi, which is the original lessee of the Petitioner. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19103 of 2023 dt.27-07-2023

11. He further submits that the Petitioner namely Ajay

Kumar and his family members have been informed that the

Opposite Party No. 2 is just an employee who looks after the

accounts. Hence the Opposite Party No. 2 has no locus and/or

right to claim himself as tenant of the premises.

12. He further submits that petitioner after his retirement

from a Nationalised Bank, i.e. on 31 January, 2014 has decided to

start his own business of Eating Joints in Patna. Since he had his

own premises in Patna which was suitable for business purpose of

the petitioner, he informed the staff of the premises in advance in

month of April, 2010 about his decision and accordingly

requested them to inform the tenant to vacate the premises latest

by 31 January 2014.

13. At the outset learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner

submits that it is necessary to state that the Opposite Party No. 2

came to meet the Petitioner in the month of April 2010 and re-

quested that if a fresh lease is not signed between the Petitioner

and him then, then now onwards no rent will be paid and the

Opposite Party No. 2 will not vacate the premises. This has led to

filing of this frivolous and fabricated FIR as a counterblast of the

incident mentioned here.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19103 of 2023 dt.27-07-2023

since April, 2010 the petitioner has not received rent for the

premises. That the rent was Rs. 15,000 per month in the year 2010

when the father of the petitioner last received the rent. Till 31st

March 2010 a lump sum amount towards rent has been paid. The

father of the petitioner always has issued receipt for rent paid to

him. Hence the allegations in the FIR is false and imaginary.

15. He further submits that when the petitioner called the

Opposite Party No. 2 in February 2014, the Opposite Party No. 2

gave the petitioner a partnership deed dated 01.04.1981 showing

the Opposite Party No. 2 as tenant of the premises. When the

partnership deed was studied by the Petitioner it was observed

that it is between Smt. Sarabjit Kaur Bajaj and the Opposite Party

No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 2 is said to be a working partner

for running the partnership business of automobile products and

name of partnership business shall be "Harjit Automobiles. The

clause 11 of the partnership deed gave tenancy rights to Smt.

Sarabjit Kaur Bajaj. Hence the Opposite Party No. 2 was not a

tenant as per this partnership deed. The Opposite Party No. 2 gave

another partnership deed dated 19.06.1993, wherein also tenancy

rights was with Smt. Sarabjit Kaur Bajaj. Hence the Opposite

Party No. 2 was never a tenant and has filed this FIR just to shield

himself as a tenant of the premises and to protect his job. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19103 of 2023 dt.27-07-2023

16. He further submits that on the occasion of a function in

the family both the sons had come to Patna and the Opposite

Party No. 2 has chosen this occasion to lodge the present case in

order to put pressure on the petitioner to sign a fresh lease with

him.

17. There was a landlord tenant dispute in which the Oppo-

site Party No. 2 was not ready to vacate the premises in capacity

of an employee. The Opposite Party No. 2 was never a tenant of

the premises. When rent was not paid and fresh lease was not

executed between the parties it has led to filing of this FIR which

is full of conjectures and surmises and concocted allegations.

18. He further submits that it has come in the course of

investigation that all the independent witnesses have not

supported the prosecution story. The independent witnesses have

supported the fact that the petitioner is innocent and since the

Opposite Party no.2 has been asked to vacate the premises, and no

fresh lease executed between the parties, this FIR has been

peacefully handed over the possession of the Petitioner on

06.06.2020

19. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has

been made scapegoat of oblique motive and ulterior purpose of

the Opposite Party No. 2 just to wreak vengeance on the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19103 of 2023 dt.27-07-2023

petitioner out of private/personal grudge. The petitioner has been

made victim of malicious prosecution.

20. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that

it is a civil dispute which has been given color of criminal

proceedings just to harass the petitioner and falsely implicate

them. Hence the cognizance order needs to be quashed as it is a

civil dispute.

21. Learned APP has submitted that from the reading of the

F.I.R., it will appear that this may be a landlord tenant dispute

and the offences are not made out.

22. I have considered the submission of the parties.

23. From the reading of the FIR, it is clear that the

petitioner is the landlord of the premises of the opposite party no.

2, the entire dispute is basically because of the tenancy and the

prosecution of the petitioner is mala-file prosecution.

24. In my opinion, such mala-fide prosecution should not

continue as it will cause harassment to the petitioner and other

accused persons.

25. In view of the above, the order dated 03.09.2019

passed in General Register No. 2583 of 2014 arising out of

Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 164 of 2014 whereby and where

under the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XIV, Patna is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19103 of 2023 dt.27-07-2023

hereby quashed against all the accused persons as the other

accused are the sons of the petitioner.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

Sunnykr/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
Uploading Date          02.08.2023
Transmission Date       02.08.2023