HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) ACCUSED Dhulji s/o Champalal was prosecuted under Section 404, I. P. C. upon a complaint filed by one Kanchanbai. On issue of process against him, accused applied on 13-9-1954 for quashing the order for such an issue on the ground that the complaint referred to an offence under Section 404. I, P. C. with respect to an immovable property whereas no such offence could be committed with respect to a property of that description.
(2.) THE trying Magistrate overruled that contention. The accused therefore preferred revision petition to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that no offence under Section 404, I. P. C. can be committed with respect to immovable property. He therefore has made this reference.
(3.) PROSECUTION case as stated in the complaint is that there is a house in Mouja Piploda which belonged to one Nandram, Nandram executed a will in respect of this house in favour of the complainant who was the mistress of his deceased brother Deepchand. A few months later Nandram died. The house was in actual occupation of a tenant named Ratan-lal. After the death of Nandram accused Dhulji in collusion with Ratanlal obtained possession of the house. The complainant Kanchanbai therefore has filed this complaint under Sections 404 and 404/109, I. P. C. against both Dhulji and Ratanlal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.