- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. with a request to quash the proceedings of Case No. 13 of 1997, State v. Shakuntala Devi, pending in the Court of City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under Section 133, Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE petitioners have alleged that they are tenants of different shops of premises No. 32/80 Mani Ram Bagiya, Kanpur Nagar of which opposite party No. 2 was the land ford and owner. That opposite party No. 2 has transferred the property in favour of opposite parties No. 3 to 7 on 24-9-98. that opposite parties are looking out some way to evict the petitioners. That instead of invoking the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, on the other hand, opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 133, Cr. P. C. before the City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, on which he has passed a conditional order for removal of the structure under Section 133, Cr. P. C. The conditional order has been challenged by the learned counsel on two grounds. Firstly, that it is not a legal order and secondly, that the opposite parties should have taken recourse of the provisions of Section 21 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and cannot be permitted to get rid of the tenants in this manner. I have heard Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. K. Jain, Senior counsel for opposite par ties No. 2 to 7 and the A. G. A. and have gone through the record.
(3.) THE impugned order under Section 133 (1), Cr. P. C. starting proceedings is Annexure-C. A-3. It is mentioned in the order that the Officer In charge of the Police Station has submitted report on 30-7-97 that premises No. 32/30 in dispute is very old and is in dilapidated condition. Its upper portion has already fallen. THE shops outside the building may fall at any time, which may result in taking the life and destroy the property of general public. He has, therefore, directed the petitioners to show-cause on 29-1-98 as to why the order may not be passed for demolition. The petitioners have not file any objection to this show-cause notice and have approached this Court to quash the proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P. C. It is contended that the order has been passed on the basis of the police report and the learned Magistrate has not recorded the satisfaction. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in view of the provisions of Section 133 (1), Cr. P. C. The order can be passed by the Magistrate on receiving the report of the police officer or other information and on taking such evidence, if any, as he con siders necessary. Before passing the order, satisfaction is required to be recorded under Section 145, Cr. P. C. , but contrary to it, the language used in Section 133, Cr. P. C. is different and therefore, the argument that the learned Magistrate should have record satisfaction, is not correct. The order under Section 133, Cr. PC. " can be passed on the basis of police report above.;