Delhi District Court
Texmaco Infrastructure And Holding Ltd vs State on 21 September, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ASJ-05 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 14/2015
FIR No. 107/2009,
PS Roop Nagar
Under Sections 448/34 IPC
Texmaco Infrastructure and Holding Ltd.
(formerly known as M/s Texmaco Ltd.)
having its office at
508, Surya Kiran Building,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001
........Appellant
Versus
1.State
through Govt. of NCT Delhi
2.Satya Prakash
S/o late Sh. Kanta Parkash
R/o 79-A, Shivaji Bhawan,
Roshanara Building,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi
3.Rakesh Gupta
S/o late Sh. Kanta Parkash
R/o 79-A, Shivaji Bhawan,
Roshanara Building,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi
.....Respondents
Date of institution : 23.12.2014
Date of receiving in this Court : 03.02.2015
Date of conclusion of final arguments/
reservation of judgment : 14.09.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.09.2015
Criminal Appeal No. 14/2015 Page 1 of 5
2
JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Texmaco Infrastructure and Holding Ltd. against the impugned order dated 07.11.2014 passed by Learned ACMM in case FIR No. 107/2009, PS Roop Nagar under Sections 448/34 IPC whereby the application of the appellant u/s 452 Cr.P.C. for restoring possession of quarter No.79A, Shivaji Line, Shakti Nagar to the appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary to decide the present appeal as alleged in the complaint are that the appellant company was running a Mill at Delhi till 30.01.1996 and it was closed pursuant to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Pursuant to closure, Radhey Shyam Sharma, the attorney of the appellant company M/s Texmaco Infrastructure and Holding Ltd. (previously known as M/s Texmaco Ltd. and hereinafter referred to as the company) filed a complaint in PS Roop Nagar against Satya Prakash and Rakesh Gupta, respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively alleging that the company is the owner of Quarter No.79A, Shivaji Line, Shakti Nagar, Delhi which was allotted to Sh. Dashrath Upadhyay during his employment with the appellant company. He had vacated the said quarter by handing over its possession to the company through the complainant. Accordingly, the quarter was locked under the lock and key of the appellant company. However, Satya Prakash Gupta and Rakesh Gupta, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, illegally trespassed in that quarter. When they were asked to vacate the said quarter, both the respondents had threatened the Estate Officer to kill him if he does not leave the spot immediately.
3. On the basis of the allegation of the complainant, FIR No.107/09, PS Roop Nagar was registered against the respondents u/s 448/34 IPC and charge- sheet was accordingly filed. The learned Trial Court vide order dated Criminal Appeal No. 14/2015 Page 2 of 5 3 29.08.2011 framed notice u/s 448/34 IPC against the respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the evidence of PW1/Radhey Shyam Sharma, learned Counsel for the complainant moved an application u/s 452 Cr.P.C. for restoring possession of quarter No.79A, Shivaji Lines, Shakti Nagar which was dismissed by the impugned order.
4. It is this impugned order which has been assailed before this Court. It has been very strongly contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the learned Trial Court has completely misinterpreted Section 452 Cr.P.C. and has passed the impugned order which is manifestly illegal. Per contra, it has been urged by learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Court as Section 452 Cr.P.C. is applicable only to movable property and trial is yet to conclude.
5. The only controversy which is involved in the present appeal is the interpretation of Section 452 Cr.P.C. and whether the order of restoration of property in question can be passed during the pendency of trial. The relevant portion of Section 452 Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein as follows:
"452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.- (1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which, any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence.
(2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision."Criminal Appeal No. 14/2015 Page 3 of 5 4
Admittedly, this section applies to disposal of property after the conclusion of an inquiry or trial. The first question which needs to be answered in the present appeal is if Section 452 Cr.P.C. is applicable to immovable property. In Narasingha Rau Vs. Sricharan Panda reported as AIR 1967 Orissa 182, this question has very aptly been answered. In this case Section 517 of the Old Code which corresponds to Section 452 of Cr.P.C. was referred to. It was argued in AIR 1967 Orissa 182 that the "property" referred to in Section 517 of the Old Code covered cases of movable property only and not immovable property. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa that:
"Section 517 (1) does not confine itself to movable property. It speaks of any property which includes both movable and immovable. If Section 522 (1) (of the Old Code which corresponds to Section 456 of the new Code) is specifically confined to immovable property, there was no difficulty for the legislature in clearly confining Section 517(1) to movables. Further, Section 522 (1) covers only cases ending in conviction wherein dispossession of the property took place by application of criminal force or intimidation by an accused. Every other class of dispossession of immovable property comes within the sweep of Section 517(1). Rami Bai Vs. Natho, AIR 1961 Madhya Pradesh 25 is a direct authority on the point. For all the reasons discussed above Mr. Murty's contention that the restoration of the property to defendant 3 cannot come within S. 517(1), Cr.P.C. must be rejected." (emphasis added) Hence, it is crystal clear that Section 452 Cr.P.C. is applicable not only to movable properties but also to immovable properties.
6. Now, the second question which arises is whether the trial court has concluded its inquiry or trial so as to use its discretionary power to pass the direction to deliver the possession of the property in question to the appellant. The trial court record reveals that the trial is still at a nascent stage and only one witness has been examined and that too in part. The object of Section 452 Cr.P.C. is to provide a summary method to ascertain the entitlement to possession of the property which is also the discretion of Criminal Appeal No. 14/2015 Page 4 of 5 5 the trial Court. In the instant case, the trial Court is still in the midst of trial which is yet to be concluded. Thus, even if Section 452 Cr.P.C. is applicable to immovable properties, the stage is not yet arrived to handover the custody of the property in question to either party u/s 452 Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this judgment. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.09.2015. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced and signed in the open Court on 21.09.2015 (Hemani Malhotra) Addl. Sessions Judge-05(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 14/2015 Page 5 of 5