Suresh Lohade & Anr. v. The S.H.O., Saifabad P.S & Anr.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2746 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A2 in C.C.No.5552 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

The allegations in the charge sheet would go to show that A1 was the owner of premises bearing No.5-9-22 situated beside British Library, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad. He let out the premises to the complainant/R2 on rent, where he started running a Show-room under the name and style “Auto Pradeep” (Car Grooming Center). A1 and A2 told the complainant to vacate the premises, but he failed to vacate the premises and obtained Status-quo vide order, dated 21.11.2005, in I.A.No.1915 of 2005 in O.S.No.7483 of 2005 on the file of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. On 22.11.2005 at about 08:00 PM, after completion of the business work, the complainant closed his Show-room by properly locking it. On the night of 22.11.2005, A1 and A2 gained entry into the Show-room of the complainant by breaking the lock of the Show-room and committed theft of fridge, furniture, air coolers, one glow sign board, mixers etc., and they have put their locks to the Show-room. Thus, the acts of A1 and A2 constitute offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. When the notice is sent to respondent No.2, it is returned as not claimed by respondent No.2.

Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the orders passed under the Code.

Respondent No.2/de facto complainant filed Original Suit No.7483 of 2005, on the file of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction. He also filed I.A.No.1915 of 2005 in the said Original Suit for ad-interim injunction in respect of the suit schedule property bearing H.No.5-9-23. But, on 16.02.2006, after hearing both sides, the competent civil Court held that respondent No.2 herein/complainant did not file any document to show that he was in the peaceful possession of the said property since 2003, and dismissed the said I.A. On appeal, the said dismissal order was confirmed, vide judgment, dated 26.02.2008, in C.M.A.No.72 of 2006, on the file of XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Thereafter, for non-prosecution of the Suit by respondent No.2, the Original Suit was dismissed by the trial Court. When a competent civil Court has given a finding that respondent No.2 has failed to establish that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in premises bearing No.5-9-22 from 2003 onwards, the question of committing house trespass by the petitioners herein on the night of

22.11.2005 appear to be absurd and it is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court.