AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.—This writ petition is challenged against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court at Girgaum in C. L. No. 26/Misc of 1991, wherein a complaint filed by the first respondent u/s 145(1) of Cr. P.C. has been taken on file and process issued against the petitioner.
The short facts of the case is that the first respondent was an employee of the petitioner co-operative society. First respondent''s complaint is that as an employee of the society he was permitted to occupy an accommodation admeasuring about 500 sq.ft. It is consisting of a hall, bedroom and kitchen. The further allegation made in the complaint is that on 22.12.1990 the petitioner orally terminated the services of the first respondent with effect from 1.1.1991 and he was asked to vacate the premises. It is the case of the first respondent that his services was terminated by the petitioner with an oblique motive to dispose of the property wherein the petitioner was staying. With these and other allegations the first respondent has filed the complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
None appeared for the petitioner and the first respondent. Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar APP appeared for the State respondent No. 2.
I have gone through the complaint filed by the first respondent before the Magistrate in detail. I also perused the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In the complaint there is no allegation that the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent will result or become a cause for breach of public peace in the locality. Apprehension or likelihood of breach of peace is a sine qua non for maintaining a complaint u/s 145 Cr. P.C. In the absence of such allegation the Magistrate does not get jurisdiction to maintain an application u/s 145 Cr. P.C. The only allegation contained in the complaint is as stated in paragraph 4 is thus :-
The applicant apprehends that if he approaches the Labour Court before approaching this Honourable Court u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 then there is eminent danger of his forcible dispossession from the said premises and therefore, the applicant has approached this Honourable Court first.
Admittedly the dispute between the first respondent and petitioners were pending in the Labour Court. The first respondent has stated for what purpose he has approached the Magistrate. However there is no averment in the complaint that there is a likelihood of breach of peace on account of the dispute between the first respondent and the petitioners. Therefore in the absence of such allegations the process issued by the learned Magistrate is illegal as it was issued without jurisdiction. Therefore it is liable to be quashed.
In the result the writ petition is allowed and the process issued by the Magistrate on 20.2.1991 against the petitioner is quashed. No order as to costs.