Final Order 1

Order Details: Order below Ex-1
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
RAILWAY COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI
C. C. No. 315/N/2019
Pramod Narayan Beerbahadur Rai
….Applicant
V/s.
Lata Dashrath Kasabe and 3 Ors. ….Respondents
ORDER BELOW EXH. 1
1. Read the application and say filed by respondent. Read the
evidence of applicant and documents filed on record. Respondent has
not led any evidence on record nor has cross examined the applicant.
Applicant submits that, he is the co-owner of compound known as
Beerbahadur Laying CTS 343, 344, 344 (1 to 8) Shankarwadi
Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai. Respondent was his monthly tenant and as
per decree of Small Cause Court, in RAE and R Suit No. 197/ 2014
which was finalised by Appellate Court, tenancy rights of respondents
were decided and vacant possession of the said room was given to
applicant as per bailiff report dt.19.12.2018.
2. Applicant submits that, he has put his lock on said room,
but defendant be breaking the lock has forcibly taken possession of the
room on 12.1.2019. He has filed an F.I.R. 14 of 2019 at Meghwadi
Police Station on same day. Respondent were arrested and are charge-
sheeted before this Court C. C. No. 1908/PS/2019. Respondent no. 3
and 4 are local leaders and social workers and now they are threatening
the applicant to forget the said room. Due to act of respondent, there is
every possibility of breach of peace of area. Therefore, applicant prays
for restoration of possession of his room.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
3. Respondent admits that applicant is co-owner of said room
and submits that applicant has misrepresented before Small Causes
Court and has obtained decree. Respondent submits that, possession
was never given to the applicant and as per bailiff report possession is
just a symbolic possession. Applicant has never put his lock on the said
room and has filed false F.I.R. about imaginary incident. Respondent
submits that they are and were in exclusive possession of the said room
and possession was never delivered to applicant. Respondent submits
that they are law abiding citizens and obey the orders of the Court.
Applicant has Civil remedy available therefore, he shall approach Civil
Court for necessary orders. Respondent submits that there is no case of
breach of public peace, hence his possession be protected and applicant
be restrained from disturbing his possession.
4. As respondent has not cross examined the applicant his
evidence on record is unchallenged. From documentary evidence on
record, in decree of Small Cause Court in RAE and R Suit no 197/ 2014
which was finalised by Appellate Court, tenancy rights of respondents
were decided and vacant possession of the said room was given to
applicant as per bailiff report dt.19.12.2018. Submission of applicant is
unchallenged that he has put his lock on said room, but respondent by
breaking the lock has forcibly taken possession of the room on
12.1.2019, therefore he has filed an F.I.R. 14 of 2019 at Meghwadi
Police Station on same day and are charge-sheeted before this Court
1908/PS/2019. Present application is filed on 20.02.2019 and till
today no preliminary order is passed by this Court. As per submission
of applicant there is every possibility of breach of peace of area due to
above dispute. As per contents in F.I.R. and final report charge-sheet
filed by police, they have not stated anything about such probability or
possibility of breach of peace.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
5. Law is very clear that, in proceedings under Section 145 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, Court cannot decide the title or rights of
the parties. Paramount consideration of the Criminal Court is to avoid
any breach of peace. In present case applicant has rightly involved
police who have controlled the situation and have charge-sheeted the
respondent as trespasser. At present respondent is in possession of said
room and no event of breach of peace is occurred in this long span of 5
years.
6. As per unchallenged evidence applicant seem to have
better title, but Criminal Court has nothing to do with title of the
parties. At present as per submission of applicant there is every
possibility of breach of peace of area due to above dispute, but I do not
find any chance or likelihood of such a breach of the peace. I am not
convinced that such apprehension of breach of peace is an existing one
and an adequate one for taking action. Mere apprehension of the
applicant or even of the police is not sufficient ground for taking action
under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, as per
ratio in Ranbir Singh V/s. Dalbir Singh, 2002 Cr.LJ 2017 decided by
Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any reason to exercise
extraordinary jurisdiction as prayed by applicant. Applicant ought to
have approached the Civil Court under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act,
1963, but he has approached the wrong forum. Relief claimed by
applicant is out of scope of Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
hence, present application is rejected.
sd/-
( N. V. Bansal )
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date : 02/07/2024 Railway Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --