Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishwar Chand Gupta vs Chander Shekhar And Another on 6 December, 1999
Author: Bakhshish Kaur
Bench: Bakhshish Kaur
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J.
1. A complaint under Sections 420, 467, 442, 448, 427 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, was filed by Ishwar ChandGuptaagainst Chander Shek-har, Siri Chand, Musaddi Lal et cetera.
2. The back-drop of the case is that Ishwar Chand Gupta is atenant in shop bearing Municipal No. 494/G, situate opposite Municipal Committee, G.T. Road, Palwal, as he was inducted as such by Siri Chand. Siri Chand, landlord, tried to raise construction in front of the said shop in the year 1991, which gave rise to the filing of suit for injunction by the complainant-tenant. In the year 1993, Siri Chand made some holes in the roof of the shop. In this situation, the complainant being a tenant filed a petition under Section 10 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The Local Commissioner was appointed by the Rent Controller in order to ascertain the condition of the premises. The Local Commissioner reported that the landlord had broken the roof of the shop in question.
3. Siri Chand, accused, in order to dispossess the complaintant-tenant, got filed a fictitious and frivolous ejectment petition through Ishwar Chand Gupta, accused-revisionist, posing as landlord, against Musaddi Lal (since died) describing him as tenant over the shop, in question, which in fact is in possession of the complainant. Neither Chander Shekhar was the landlord, nor Musaddi Lal was the tenant; even then the ejectment order relating to the shop, in question, was passed, by the Rent Controller. Chander Shekhar is the son of Siri Chand and Musaddi Lal, aforesaid alleged tenant, is the maternal uncle of Chander Shekhar and brother-in-law of Siri Chand, landlord. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 illegally and fraudulently stating wrong facts in eviction petition No. 21/2 of 1991 obtained ejectment order on January 17, 1993, fully knowing that only the complainant is in possession of the shop as tenant. In this way they have forged the documents and obtained order of ejectment, which is a valuable security. This fact was also in the knowledge of the remaining accused Nos. 4 to 7 and they have made a false report on 23.12.1993 and 6.3.1995 and thereby committed criminal trespass by entering into the shop, in question and by removing and throwing the goods lying therein. Thus, Ishwar Chand Gupta filed a complaint on these allegations.
4. On the basis of the preliminary evidence brought on the record, the accused were summoned as there were sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint.
5. The accused-petitioners on their appearance before the trial Court moved an application for recalling of the summoning order dated 31.10.1996, but the same was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal. The revision petition preferred by Chander Shekhar and Siri Chand was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (VII), Faridabad on the ground that no case is made out against any of the revisionists and after accepting the revision petition, both the revisionists were discharged. The complainant- petitioner has, therefore, challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
6. I have heard Mr. G.S. Virk, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, the learned counsel representing the respondents.
7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had discharged the revisionists- respondents, mainly on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate nowhere held that the revisionists had played a fraud and obtained claim in the Court of Justice and nowhere filed any complaint against any of the revisionists. Thus, provisions of Section 209, Code of Criminal Procedure are not attracted, nor the complaint filed by the complaint is maintainable.
8. The finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is patently wrong. The facts and circumstances referred to above, clearly indicate the nefarious act on the part of the respondent to and clever device of dispossessing the complainant from the premises in dispute. They had played fraud with the Court by introducing strangers and portraying them as landlord and tenant in place of real landlord and the tenant of the rented premises. Thus the complainant was dispossessed from the premises, in question, by obtaining ejectment order from the Court fraudulently. The trial Court had rightly summoned the respondents as there was sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint. The Rent Controller, on the contrary, cannot be held to be a Court for purpose of ' Section 195(i)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, as has been held in Sumer Chand v. Shri Daya Sarup Saxena, 1970 P.L.R. 125.
This petition is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 4.12.1998 is hereby set aside and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, dated 31.10.1996 is maintained.
9. Petition allowed.