U.V. Bakre. J.

Heard Mr. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), on behalf of the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent heard forthwith.

3. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 22/11/2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panaji (J.M.F.C. for short) in Criminal Misc. Application No.70/2012/D be quashed and set aside and the respondent be directed to register F.I.R. on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner with Panaji Town Police Station and investigate the same in accordance with law.

4. On 3/11/2010, the petitioner lodged a report with the Panaji Town Police Station in which, in short, it has been alleged as under :

The petitioner is the lawful tenant of the portion of the ground floor of the building situated at Dayanand Bandodkar Marg, Panaji, having a carpet area of 163.5 square metres on monthly rent of Rs. 865/-. The vacant possession of the said premises was handed over by the petitioner to M/s. Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., the then owner of the building in terms of an agreement dated 2/4/1988 and pursuant to the Consent Decree dated 12/04/2007 passed by the Civil Judge. Senior Division, Panaji in Special Civil Suit No. 294/1991/A, the vacant possession of the demised premises were restored to the petitioner and the petitioner had regularly remitted the monthly rent to M/s. Rizvi Estates and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. About five months ago, the petitioner learnt that forcible possession of the whole of the demised premises, except one room thereof admeasuring 46 square metres, had been illegally and clandestinely taken over by Mr. Tahir Isani and his wife Mrs. Zeenat Isani, partners of a business firm. Both Mr. Tahir Isani and Mrs. Zeenat Isani are guilty of committing the offence since the forcible dispossession is the act of both of them who have acted d in concert and with common intention of committing offences. The accused persons have renovated, reconstructed and modified the said , portion of the demised premises and they are using the same for their business. Therefore, F.I.R. be registered against Mr. Tahir Isani and Mrs. Zeenat Isani for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 451, 453 and 456 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the matter be investigated.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that since no F.I.R. was registered by the Panaji Police, for nearly 9 months, the petitioner sent reminder to the Officer-In-charge of Panaji Police Station on 27/8/2011. In response to the same the Police Inspector wrote to the petitioner that the matter was of civil nature.

6. The petitioner thereafter filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 70/2012/0 before the J.M.F.C., Panaji and by impugned Order dated 22/11/2012, the J.M.F.C. rejected the said application. The learned J.M.F.C. held that the report does not disclose criminal intention and that ingredients of the sections of IPC are not made out.

7. According to the petitioner the impugned order is patently illegal and suffers from total non- application of mind since the complaint made by the petitioner clearly disclosed commission of cognizable offences mentioned therein.

8. By order dated 6/5/2013, this Court directed the respondent No. 1 to file an affidavit disclosing the inquiry, if any, carried out pursuant to the report dated 3/11/2010 filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Police Inspector of Panaji Police Station has filed affidavit-in-reply. He has, inter alia, stated as follows :

As per the records of Panaji Police Station the report dated 3/11/2010 along with all enclosures was received by Police Inspector Shri Sandesh Chodankar, then attached to Panaji Police Station. who handed over the investigation to the then Police Sub-Inspector Shri Ramnathkar but ther