LexPRAKASH CHAND SACHDEVA versus STATE AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PRAKASH CHAND SACHDEVA v. STATE AND ANOTHER DECEMBER 14, 1993 B [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.) Criminal Procedure Code 1973-Ss. 107, 145. Filing of Civil Suit and . dropping of proceedings under S.107-Held: When there is no dispute of title between the parties, the pendency of the Civil suit was no bar to continuance C of proceedings under S.145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A dispute between S and his son regarding the occupation of an independent portion of the house owned by S leading to S's ouster led to the filing of proceedings under S.107 & S. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. S also filed a Civil Suit in which an Order granting an injunction D of status quo was made. Proceedings under S.107 were dropped. However, the Magistrate as a consequence of dropping of proceedings under S.107 also dropped the proceedings under S. 145. The High Court affirmed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order holding that having resorted to a Civil Suit, the Appellant could not continue proceedings under S.145. Against , E this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave. Allowing the Appeal, this Court HELD : Normally a Civil Suit prevents invoking of criminal Juris· diction, but this is applicable to a suit based on title. However, when the F title and the right to possession are not in dispute and the only dispute is as to the question of possession, then the dropping of proceedings under S.107 can not be the foundation for dropping of proceedings under S.145. (954-G, 955-C) Madhu Limaye & Anr. v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Monghyr & Ors., G AIR (1971) S.C. 2486, relied upon. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of UP & Ors., AIR (1985) S.C. 472, distinguished. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. H 763 of 1993. 952 ..... : - SACHDEVAv. STATE[SAHAI,J.) 953 From the Judgment and Order date<l 15.3.93 of the Delhi High Court A in Crl. M (M) No. 451 of 1993. Arvind Minocha for the Appellant. R.C. Pathak for the Respondents. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M.SAHAI, J. Ingratitude of a son, compelled his father, the appel- lant, a retired Assistant Engineer aged 77 years to knock the doors of the Courts, both, civil and criminal, to enter into possession of his own house. As this by itself was not sufficient, the respondent son in the affidavit, filed . C in this Court, has accused his father of, 'abusing process of Court' on 'false and fabricated allegations'. He has even taken the plea that his father was 'trying to overawe him' an instead of seeking partition of the property as it was ancestral and he was co-owner of it, he was harassing him. Dispute arose about an independent portion in house no. G-39, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. It was in occupation of a tenant who admittedly vacated in February 1992. The appellant claims to have oc- cupied it. The claim is supported by a letter written by the tenant to the appellant on 14th April 1992 to the following effect: "I have vacated your Ground Floor Flat at G-39, Jangpura Extn. today and possession of the same was handed over to your good- self. Please issue me a no dues certificate at the earliest. Thanking you and with regards," The authenticity of the letter is not disputed. But its effect had been attempted to be diluted by the respondent by claiming that it was written D E F to harm him as he got the house vacated. The respondent claims that the G appellant never resided in the house in dispute. May be so. Why the appellant who was residing in another house No. 15/239, New Moti Nagar of his own with family of his other son, who died, decided to shift to the house in dispute, is immaterial. An owner of the house could at his option reside at his one or the other house. Even if it is assumed that the disputed house is ancestral the appellant was not required to explain the reason for H 954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A his decision to come and live in it. His right to reside could not be dis11uted. But no sooner he came the. problem started. And according to the appel- lant his report to the police for misbehaviour of his son and his family members went unheeded. That the father. had to approach the police authori~ies against his own son is indeed painful. But that speaks volume B about the son. The inaction of the police on which reliance was placed by the son is explainable but not understandable. It does not help the respon- d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.