SUDHANSHU SHARMA vs DEVRAT SHARMA

] This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed for quashment of First Information Report arising out of Crime No.632/2016, Police Station-Sanyogitagang, District-Indore under Section 448/34 of IPC.

] In this case, notices were sent to respondent No.2, who is complainant in this case. The notices were duly served, however, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

] The relevant facts for disposal of this application are that the applicant was residing in a building called Borriya Quarters, which was in possession of Central P.W.D. She was living in three rooms of the building. In 1996, respondent No.2 filed a civil suit against her claiming her to be a tenant of him and on this ground, suit was filed for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. The suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.2 by judgment dated 07.07.2016. The first appeal filed against the judgment was also dismissed by judgment of the appellate Court dated 02.05.2008, in first civil appeal No.6/2007 pending before 10th Additional District Judge, Indore. Second appeal filed before this Court was also dismissed in Second Appeal No.400/2008 vide order dated 02.07.2009, and thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner vacated the one room which was in her possession.

] Thereafter, it is alleging that the present petitioner encroached upon two rooms of the same building, the F.I.R. was lodged against which, this application is filed on the following grounds (i) that a complaint was filed on the premise that the present petitioner encroached upon two rooms in the building, however it was held in the civil suit filed earlier that she was only having possession of one room on the the ground floor, and therefore, no order was passed in respect of two other rooms which according to the petitioner were in her possession from the very beginning.

(ii) according to the petitioner, she has been residing in the Borriya quarter from the days of Holker State. The building was in possession of Central P.W.D. after independence, she had been in possession of three rooms from the beginning and she had been depositing electricity bill for the area also.

(iii) on 25.10.2016, respondent No.2 filed an application before the building officer, zone No.18, Indore Municipal Corporation that the present applicant enroached upon two rooms. The officer conducted an inquiry and it was found that she had been in possession of the rooms from the very beginning. According to the petitioner, the F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant due to animosity and she is falsely implicated.

] I have heard both the counsel and gone through the copies of the charge-sheet, which were filed by the petitioner with the chargesheet and copies of the decree passed by 6th Civil Judge Class-2 in Civil Suit No.200-A-96. In this decree, boundaries of the suit premises were mentioned. It is true that in the decree, only one room was mentioned, however, in its boundaries in north it is shown that plaintiff's room is located, in south there is open land, in east there is a open land and in the west there is rooms of plaintiff or one Beg. No rooms are shown which were in possession of the present applicant, and also from the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge Class-2, it is not apparent that it is a case of the present petitioner before the judge that she was having possession of three rooms in the building. This apart, so far as the application of the complainant to Municipal Corporation of Indore is concerned, that was only a brief inquiry for the purpose of provisions of Municipal Corporation Act. The property does not belong to Municipal Corporation, Indore as it is claimed by the petitioner that the property belong to Central P.W.D. The ownership of the building was not proved before the Civil Judge and the suit was purely based on relationship of landlord and tenant, therefore, the brief inquiry by the officers of the corporation would have no impact on this criminal case. This criminal case is based on independent investigation undertaken by the investigating officer, and therefore, when the F.I.R. shows commission of a cognizable offence, no interference is called for using powers granted to this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

] In this view of the matter, the application is devoid of any force, liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly.