K.L.Sharma - (1.) CRIMINAL Misc. Application No. 551 of 1994 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in criminal case No. 832/IX/93 (Gajanand Chaturvedi v. Lalji Chaturvedi) under Section 145, Cr. P.C., P.S. Kotwali, district Mathura pending in the court of City Magistrate. Mathura and for interim stay of the operation of the order dated 11.10.1993 of attachment passed by the City Magistrate Mathura in the aforesaid case under Section 146 (1) of Code of CRIMINAL Procedure and for direction to the City Magistrate Mathura to hand over the possession of the disputed property to the applicant after opening its lock put on 26.10.1993.
(2.) THE connected criminal miscellaneous application No. 812 of 1994 has been filed under Section 482. Cr. P.C. by Dinesh Chandra Chaturvedi respondent No. 3 of Crl. Misc. application No. 551 of 1994 relating to the same proceedings aforesaid for quashing the orders dated 24.2.1994 passed by the City Magistrate, Mathura whereby the application for adjournment of the proceedings presented by the applicant was rejected. It has also been prayed in this application that the applicant be impleaded as a party to the aforesaid proceedings and an opportunity for hearing and evidence be given and also a prayer for transfer of this case to any other court was made. The common facts leading to the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are briefly state as follows : The respondent No. 2 Gajanand Chaturvedi moved an application on 15.6.1993 before the Superintendent of Police Mathura claiming himself to be resident of house No. 643 to 647 Tulsi Chabutara Chauki Holi, P.S. Mathura and also owns Manik Bhawan 990 Satgadha. Mathura. But he apprehended that the persons mentioned in the application wanted to take forcible possession of the said property by ousting him from his peaceful possession in the absence of his father. The City Magistrate Mathura called for a police report and the police submitted a report on 6.9.93 stating that there is an apprehension of breach of peace and the property may be sealed. The City Magistrate asked for an additional report on certain points from the police and then the police submitted another report on 16.9.1993 stating that there is no civil case relating to the property in question pending in any civil court and that one Bharat Kumar Mathura Das Babra resident of Bombay was its owner. The City Magistrate did not take any action on either of these reports but on 11.10.1993 he passed an order of attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. and directed the police to comply with the order of attachment latest by 28.10.1993 and by a 3rd order of the same day the City Magistrate Mathura directed the parties to appear in his Court for giving evidence. However the said proceedings are still pending. On 16.3.1994 this court passed an interim stay order of further proceedings pending before the City Magistrate Mathura and directed the police to make inventory of the articles kept inside the building in dispute but these articles will not be handed over to any party till further orders.
(3.) SINCE the respondent No. 3 Dinesh Chandra Chaturvedi was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C, he had moved an application for impleadment as well as application for transfer of the case and for adjournment of the proceedings before the City Magistrate. The applicant Lalji Chaturvedi appeared before the City Magistrate Mathura and informed that civil suit No. 1075 of 1994 Lalji Chaturvedi S/o Bharat Kumar and others v. Gajanand and others, relating to title and possession over the disputed property was pending in the Court of Munsif, Mathura and as such the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. be dropped and the order of attachment be withdrawn and the possession be handed over back to the applicant. The respondent No. 2 had also filed his objection admitting the pendency of his civil suit relating to the disputed property. However the City Magistrate Mathura did not decide the application dated 28.10.1993 filed by the applicant and several dates were fixed in the case. SINCE the application of respondent No. 3 for impleadment was rejected by the City Magistrate, he moved an application for transfer of the case before the District Magistrate and thereafter the City Magistrate did not fix any date in the case. The transfer application was also not disposed of by the District Magistrate prior to the filing of this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. I have heard Sri S. V. Goswami learned counsel for the applicants and Sri K. K. Mishra learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri Rajul Bhargawa learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and perused the material brought or record.;