( 1 ) FOR the reasons stated in the application the application is allowed. Orders dated 14. 10. 2004 and 16. 1. 2004 are recalled. Crl. M. C. No. 1594/2004 is restored to its original number. Application stands disposed of. Crl. M. C. No. 1594/2002

( 2 ) PETITIONER appearing in person, submits that his father Sh. Hari Singh was a tenant in the premises bearing No. 12a/39, W. E. A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi Consisting of one room, kitchen, toilet and varandah, for more than thirty years. On 8. 9. 1997, he alongwith his sister Kartar Kaur went to Haridwar to perform the last rites of their father. In their absence the accused persons broke open the lock of the said premises removed the articles belonging to his father. They took time to compromise the matter but without result. Ultimately, complaint in this regard was filed on 11. 8. 1998. Learned Metropolitan magistrate, vide order dated 8. 2. 2000 dismissed the complaint. The revision petition against the said order, was also, dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 25. 1. 2002.

( 3 ) PETITIONER, after arguing the matter for sometime, submits that he has also filed a civil suit for possession etc. and apprehends that observations made by the learned metropolitan Magistrate and learned Additional sessions Judge in the impugned orders may affect merits of the civil suit. Learned counsel for the respondent argued to the contrary.

( 4 ) LAW in this regard is well settled The finding of the criminal court are not binding of the Civil Court. Looking into the nature of controversy involved, it is clarified that ant observations made by the learned metropolitan Magistrate or and learned additional Sessions Judge. In the Impugned orders would not affect the merits of any civil litigation between the parties in respect of the said premises.

( 5 ) WITH the above observations the petition stands disposed of.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document