JUDGMENT - BRITTO N.A., J.: - This revision is directed against the Judgment/Order dated 21st August, 2004 of the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, in Criminal Revision Application No. 42 of 2004.

2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off the present revision.

3. The applicant herein (applicant, for short) and his mother were the owners of a property surveyed under No. 16/3 of Village Murdda, Merces. The applicant had entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 2 ('respondent' for short) on or about 3rd August, 1995 regarding the development of the said property.

4. Disputes and differences arose between the said applicant and the said respondent in connection with the development of the said property as a result of which the respondent filed two suits. Civil Suit No. 138/03/A was filed in connection with revocation of power of attorney dated 13th June, 2002, on or about 4th December, 2003 and Civil Suit No. 45/04/B was filed in relation to a partition deed entered between the applicant and his mother. However, the filing of the said suits are not of relevance for the purpose of deciding the present revision.

5. The dispute which was the subject-matter of the proceedings before the learned S.D.M. was flat No. G-3 situated on the ground floor in Block 'A'.

6. The case of the applicant was that the respondent had handed over to the applicant 5 flats including the said flat No. G-3 on the ground floor and this fact was confirmed by the respondent by his letter dated 12th June, 2002.

7. The applicant claimed that he was in Physical and legal possession of the same and was dispossessed on or about 28th January, 2004 and regarding which incident he filed a complaint to the police. The applicant, thereafter, filed an application dated 3rd May, 2004, to the learned S.D.M. purporting it to be an application filed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code, for short) stating that by virtue of agreement dated 3rd August, 1995, the respondent was allowed to develop the said property and that it terms of the said agreement, the respondent had handed over to him possession of 5 flats bearing flat Nos. 2, 3 and 6 in Block 'A' and flat Nos. 1 and 4 in Block 'B' on or about 12th June, 2002, and that subsequently, by letter dated 12th June, 2002, the said possession was confirmed. The applicant further stated that he had sold flat No. 6 to one Santosh G. Bharemane and flat Nos. 1 to 4 were given to Gajanan Pangam on licence basis. The applicant had further stated that the respondent had provided electricity connection to the said 5 flats before possession was given to the applicant by providing one meter for all the 6 flats but when the Electricity Department found the same, the supply was disconnected on 16th November, 2003, in respect of 4 flats as all the 4 flats had one meter and it was brought to his notice that all indepent flats had to have separate electricity meters. The applicant stated that upon a writ petition filed by him bearing No. 625 of 2003, the Electricity Department was directed to restore the electricity supply to the applicant.

8. As already stated, on or about 2nd May, 2004 the applicant filed a written complaint which was registered under Cr. No. 51/2004 under sections 448, 427 r/w 34 I.P.C. though, there is no mention to this complaint of the applicant in his application made to the learned S.D.M. However, the applicant did allege that the police Inspector was delaying the investigation because the respondent was the brother of another Police Inspector. The applicant also stated that on the intervention of the Superintendent of Police, the applicant was directed to break open the lock on 28th April, 2004 and had found a list of goods missing. The applicant, therefore, inter alia, prayed that the respondent be directed to restore the possession of the said flat No. G-3, Block 'A' to the applicant.

9. The learned S.D.M. referred the said complaint of the applicant to the police for enquiry

Click Here to Read the rest of this document