- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This Criminal Misc. Writ No. 2870 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner Mr. D. P. Dani with a prayer to quash the order dated 12-2-2007 passed by the S. D. M. Sardhana, District Meerut under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. and to issue a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property in dispute i. e. Modi Rubber Factory, Guest House and Administrative Building situated at Modi Puram P. S. Daurala District Meerut, and to quash the action of respondent No. 2 Sri Umesh Nath Mishra S. H. O. P. S. Daurala District Meerut dated 8-2-2007 by which the factory in dispute has been sealed.
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY, a Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. 84496 of 2007 has been moved on behalf of M. R. L. , registered office at Modi Bhawan, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U. P. having its Head Office at 4-C, D. D. A. Shopping Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025, Sri Sudesh Upadhyay, Deputy Company Secretary, M. R. L. 4-C D. D. A. Shopping Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 and R. K. Agarwal, Head Marketing of M. R. L. 4-C, D. D. A. Shopping Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110025, the same has been allowed by this Court on 24-4-2007 and they have been impleaded as respondents 4, 5 and 6. The second impleadment application has been moved on behalf of Modi Rubber Shramik Sangh through its President Sri Dil Bagh Singh, vide Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. 113156 of 2006, for the purpose of argument, the same is also allowed by impleading him as respondent No. 7. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. Impleadment Application No. 107928 of 2007 has been moved on behalf of M/s. Philips Carbon Black Limited, a company incorporated in the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 31 Neta Ji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700001 through its authorised representative Mr. A. N. Mishra, for the purpose of arguments the same is also allowed impleading him as respondent No. 8. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Sri Umesh Nath Mishra, S. H. O. P. S. Daurala District Meerut made a G. D. Entry No. 52 at 21. 35 dated 8-2-2007 at P. S. Daurala mentioning therein that when he alongwith other police personnel was on his duty, he saw that Sri R. K. Agarwal (First party) and Sri Vijai Kumar Trehan (Second party) who were claiming their possession over Modi Rubber Limited Factory Modi Puram, its other properties including Guest House, Administrative Building etc. and they were making their attempts to take over the possession for which both the parties were under tension. This dispute was likely to cause breach of peace. Both the parties were making allegations and counter allegations. Sri V. K. Gupta, D. P. Dani, P. K. Parashar, R. Giri and Sanjeev Garg were in support of the first party Sri R. K. Agarwal, whereas Alok Modi, R. K. Agarwal, V. K. Sharma, Kaushal Bhatnagar and R. C. Sharma were supporting the second party Vijay Kumar Trehan, both the parties were claiming their possession and were shouting loudly, they were asked to maintain peace by the S. H. O. Daurala but they were making the allegations on each other, in both the parties marpeet has taken place and tension has been created for taking the possession of the property in dispute. In such a marpeet the incident like murder etc. may occur, considering the same, the property in dispute was sealed and locked by the police and both the parties were apprised that report was sent to the Magistrate concerned to initiate the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and to attach the property in dispute and that both the parties were appealed to maintain peace in future. The report for the proceedings under Section 107/116, Cr. P. C. was also sent to the Magistrate concerned were asked to adduce the evidence in respect of their claims in the Court concerned. The police force was also deputed at the alleged place of dispute and both the parties were allowed to go to their respective houses. The S. H. O. of P. S. Daurala sent a report dated 9-2-2007 to the S. D. M. Sardhana for initiating the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. mentioning therein that there is a dispute in respect of the possession of Modi Rubber Factory, its Guest House and Administrative Building etc. due to this dispute both the parties may cause breach of peace. In the report it has been mentioned that the property in dispute has been sealed by the police. It has also been requested that the property in dispute may be attached under Section 146, Cr. P. C. and a receiver may also be appointed, relying upon the Police Report dated 9- 2- 2007 the learned S. D. M. Sardhana passed a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. on 12-2- 2007 and both the parties were directed to appear before the Court concerned on 20-2-2007 to put in written statements of their respective claims as respect the fact of actual possession of subject of dispute. Against the order dated 12-2-2007 the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
(3.) HEARD Sri Vinay Saran, S. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A. G. A. for the State, Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh Senior Advocate assisted by Miss. Kirtika Singh and Sri N. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nitin Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 and Sri Ajai Bhanot, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 8. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the S. H. O. of P. S. Daurala was not legally empowered to seal and lock the property in dispute because there was no order of any Court to seal the property in dispute and before initiation of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. , the property in dispute was sealed by the police. The act done by the S. H. O. P. S. Daurala was totally arbitrary, illegal and the report sent by the S. H. O. to the learned S. D. M. Sardhana for initiating the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was also illegal. It is also surprising that the learned S. D. M. Sardhana passed the preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. without mentioning therein the grounds of his satisfaction. There was no dispute between parties concerned. The order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. has been passed on 12-2-2007 on the basis of the police report dated 9-2-2007 sent by the S. H. O. P. S. Daurala whereas S. H. O. Daurala has not sent any such report on 9-2-2007, it was sent on 8-2-2007. On 9-2-2007, the S. H. O. has sent the report for initiating the proceedings under Sections 107 /116 Cr. P. C. on the basis of that report, the learned S. D. M. Sardhana has issued notice under Section 111, Cr. P. C. on 9-2-2007. The learned Magistrate has passed the order dated 12-2-2007 in a routine manner without considering the existence of any dispute which was likely to cause breach of peace, because both the parties were stranger to the property in dispute. The parties concerned were directed by the S. D. M. Sardhana to appear on 20-2- 2007, on that date the second party Sri Vijay Kumar Trehan appeared before the S. D. M. Sardhana and filed a written statement whereas the first party R. K. Agarwal did not appear before the Court of learned S. D. M. Sardhana. In an exhaustive written statement filed by the second party Sri Vijai Kumar Trehan, it has been clearly stated that no such incident as reported by the police has occurred between the parties even there was no dispute between the parties in respect of the possession of property in dispute. It has been clearly stated by the second party that all the facts narrated by the police are incorrect, he was having no concern with the property in dispute even the police of P. S. Daurala was having no business to seal the property in dispute. The property in dispute i. e. Modi Rubber Factory is owned by the family of Modi, neither the first party has any concern with the property nor the second party was having any concern with the property in dispute. It has also been clearly stated by the second party that the proceedings have been initiated without any reason whereas in respect of the property in dispute, the matter is pending before the B. I. F. R. , and it has been prayed by the second party that the proceedings under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. May be dropped even then the learned S. D. M. Sardhana has not dropped the proceedings and the property in dispute which has been sealed and locked by the police has not been released because the police authority was not having any lawful authority to do so.;