Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: forcible possession in Hardev Dohil vs State on 3 October, 2012Matching Fragments
It is case of the complainant - respondent that he filed a petition U/s 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act before Hon'ble High Court whereupon vide order dt.01.06.06 Hon'ble High Court restrained the accused - petitioner herein from taking forcible possession of the flats or from alienating or creating any third party interest in the flat. However, the accused - petitioner took forcible possession of the flats by breaking open locks of the complainant.
On the other hand, Learned Addl. P.P. has referred to order dt.01.06.06 passed by Hon'ble High Court in OMP NO.261/06 titled as S. Mela Singh Kapoor Family Trust Vs. M/s. H. Dohil Construction Company (P) Ltd. & ors. and submitted that since M/s. H. Dohil Construction Company (P) Ltd. respondent no.1 & another - respondent no.2 M/s. Dohil Prem Sadan Management Co. were restrained from taking forcible possession of portion of Flat no.413/414 situated on the 4th floor, Dohil Prem Sadan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi and also from selling, alienating, dispossessing and / or creating any third party interest in these flats, the respondents could not reenter the premises at all.
The allegation levelled by the complainant is that although the order dt. 01.06.06 was in force, the accused took forcible possession Flat no.413/414 situated on the 4th floor, Dohil Prem Sadan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, while breaking open the locks.
Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that prescribed period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence U/s 453 IPC is two years whereas prescribed period for taking cognizance of offence U/s 448 IPC is one year, but herein the challan was put in court on 06.05.08. It has been contended that since offence is alleged to have been committed in June,06, learned Metropolitan Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence when challan came to be presented after the prescribed period of one year. Therefore, contention is that petition deserves to be allowed.
The petitioners shall comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within three days."
It has been submitted by counsel for the complainant that the amount was deposited by the complainant before the Hon'ble High Court in terms of the aforesaid order.
8. In view of the directions contained in the order dt.01.06.06 passed by Hon'ble High Court, the opposite party could not take forcible possession of the flats. Since the complainant was forcibly dispossessed by the opposite party by breaking open locks, learned Trial Magistrate has rightly observed that prima facie case for an offence U/s 453 IPC is made out against the accused - petitioner.