ORDER :

1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been brought with prayer to quash the entire proceeding in Case No. 87 of 2017, pending before the respondent No. 2, which has been initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned proceeding against the petitioner is totally unlawful and baseless. There is no ingredients present in the case to proceed against the petitioner under the provision of Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The dispute is regarding a shop, situated at Civic Centre, Bhilai, which was initially allotted to late Laxmi Narayan Agrawal. Later on after the family arrangements, the shop was allotted to Anil Agrawal, who in turn has handed over the shop to Mr. Inder Kumar Suri under the power of attorney. Respondent No. 4, who is the son of Inder Kumar Suri has been unable to take possession of the shop in question as the petitioner and Sunil Agrawal have raised dispute, on this basis, the proceeding was initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is already a civil dispute present between the petitioner and the Anil Agrawal regarding which, civil suit No. 63-A/2016 has been filed praying relief of declaration regarding entitlement for the possession of the shop in dispute and for the permanent injunction to protect the possession of the petitioner. The defendants No. 1 in that suit preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The trial Court allowed the application and returned the plaint for presentation, before the proper Court under the provisions of Section 7 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against that order, which is pending. It is submitted that Inder Kumar Suri, to whom the shop has been transferred by Anil Agrawal has submitted affidavit, before the respondent No. 2, S.D.O. making a statement that shop No. 7 has been sold by Anil Agrawal to respondent No. 4 on 14.03.2016, in which the petitioner and his father Sunil Agrawal both are raising dispute because of which, one FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and his father in Police Station-Kotwali for offence under Section 294, 323, 506 B of the Indian Penal Code. Similar statements have been made on affidavit by the respondent No. 4. The petitioner has also submitted affidavit contesting the claim of the respondent No. 4 and Inder Kumar Suri. The petitioner and his father has preferred a revision No. 87 of 2017 against the initiation of proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, which has been dismissed by order dated 27.06.2017. It is submitted that according to the agreement of license for the shop, which is filed by the respondent No. 3 and 4 as Annexure R-3-1, the license was granted by Steel Authority of India to Anil Kumar Agrawal and Sunil Kumar Agrawal. There is clear condition under Clause 22 of the agreement that licensee is not empowered to sublet the plot/shop nor enter into partnership with any other person. Neither he can assign or transfer the ownership or possession of the shop or the shop. Hence, on this basis, the respondent No. 3 and 4 never had any entitlement over the shop on the basis of the transaction between them and Anil Kumar Agrawal.

4. It is submitted that Section 56 of the Easement Act, 1882 also provides that the license can not be transferred unless there is clear and express or implied intention present in the agreement. The agreement for transfer/sale between Anil Agrawal and respondent No. 4, which is filed as Annexure R-3-3 is unlawful and against the terms of license agreement. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited through Director vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2009) 7 SCC 363 on the point of invalidity of the sale agreement. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the second case of Suraj Lamp and In