Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Khan @ Pappu vs Vinod Rathor on 27 April, 2016
1 Mcrc.6440.2010
Mohammad Khan @ Pappu & Ors Vs. Vinod Rathore and other
27.04.2016
Shri Umesh Kumar Bohre, counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar, counsel for
respondent No.1.
Shri BPS Chouhan, Public Prosecutor, for
respondent No.2/State.
Heard on admission.
The applicants have preferred the present
petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the order dated
03.08.2010 passed by the First Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhind (M.P.) in Criminal Revision
No.102/2010 whereby the revision filed by the
applicants against the order dated 26.06.2010
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhind
(M.P.) in Criminal Case No.39/10X145 Cr.P.C. was
confirmed in which the SDM had directed to
attach the property and receiver was appointed.
Facts of the case, in short, are that the
respondent No.1 moved an application under Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. that he had purchased a house by the registered sale-deed dated 24.04.2009 in the sum of Rs.1,36,000/-. The house was situated in Ward No.26 of city Bhind (M.P.). After purchasing of the property, he also constructed four rooms and one latrine & bathroom. In the night of 10.04.2010, when the 2 Mcrc.6440.2010 Mohammad Khan @ Pappu & Ors Vs. Vinod Rathore and other respondent No.1 was lying in his house, the applicants forcibly dispossessed him. He lodged an FIR but no action was taken by the police and therefore he filed the aforesaid application along with an interim application under Section 146(1) of Cr.P.C. The SDM, after giving an opportunity to submit reply and to adduce evidence, found that the claim of the applicants that they were the tenants could not be established by them. No document could be shown by the applicants that they were the tenants and there was possibility of communal riots due to the dispute of possession and hence, the SDM, Bhind (M.P.) directed to attach the property and receiver was appointed.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the applicants have claimed their possession to be valid as tenants, however, no documents were produced before the magisterial court in support of the defence, hence, it was admitted by the applicants that they were in the possession of the property of the respondent No.1 and therefore, the claim of respondent No.1 was found to be correct by the SDM that the applicants took forcible possession of the property which was purchased by the respondent 3 Mcrc.6440.2010 Mohammad Khan @ Pappu & Ors Vs. Vinod Rathore and other No.1 and he constructed four rooms on that property.
Under these circumstances, no illegality or perversity is visible in the order passed by the SDM or the revisionary court. There is no reason to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicants. When the SDM took steps so that the communal riots be avoided then it would not be appropriate to disturb the impugned order of attachment.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants, namely, Mohammad Khan @ Pappu, Nizam Khan, Rahees Khan, Ajmer Khan, Rasoolan Khan is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
A copy of the order passed today be sent to the courts below for information. The record of the SDM court be also sent back to the concerned court.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd