( 1 ) SHRI P. K. Datta Chaudhary petitioner has by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) prayed for the quashing of the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, respondent No. 2 in respect of the premises bearing No. B-322, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi thereby proceedings under Section 145 of the Code were started and the premites were sealed.

( 2 ) IT would be necessary to give some details of the facts leading to the filing of this petition.

( 3 ) ON 8th August, 1983 Ranjit Bose respondent No. 3 herein filed an application under Sections 145/146 of the Code in the court of the SDM New Delhi. It was, inter alia stated by him that be bad been inlawful possession of the entire ground floor of House No. B-322, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi as a tenant of the respondent-landlord. It was further stated that since January 1983 the landlord was putting pressure on him to vacate the premises or to face dire Consequences. The petitioner went on to state that on 3rd February, 1983 an attempt was made by the respondent to dispossess him on which he lodged a report with the police while on 31st March 1983 the respondent locked the back door of the premises thereby causing inconvenience to him. A threat was also given that he would be dispossessed regarding which a report was lodged with the police. He had also pleaded that on 10th June, 1983 the respondent with the help of others took key of the premises from his servant Sue Kumar and by taking forcible possession threw away furniture and other house-house-hold goods as a result of which FIR 616/83, under Sections 448/34 Indian Penal Code was registered. He bad also claimed that proceedings under Sections 197/151 of the Code were initiated by the police against both the partics over the disputed premises and that the respondent and his men were bent upon to dispossess the applicant from the whole of his house who had already taken possession of one room. A prayer was, thus made for taking proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code.

( 4 ) REPORT dated 24th October, 1983 was obtained from the police and thereafter order dated 29th November, 1983 was passed under Sections 145 (1) of the Code. The property was also attached.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact Susheel Basu brother of the respondent was the tenant in the premises in question who bad voluntarily vacated the premises and handed over its possession to the petitioner regarding which a document was also executed by him It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent made efforts to take forcible possession of the premises and lodged a false report with the police as a result of which the petitioner was challenged. He has, however, claimed that a positive finding has been given by Metropolitan Magistrate holding that Ranjit Bose bad never been in possession of the premises. He has, thus submitted that after (his finding by a court of competent jurisdiction it was incumbent upon the SDM to have dropped the proceedings and. thus, to deliver the possession of the disputed premises to the petitioner. He has, thus, claimed that the continuance of the proceedings by the SDM even after the aforesaid decision of the competent court is an abuse of the process of court and so prayed that the proceedings be quashed.

( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submissions but have not been able to agree with the same.

( 7 ) A perusal of the file shows that in answer to the notice given to the present petitioner on the application of Ranjit Bose a reply was filed in which it was, inter alia, pleaded that the house was given on rent to one Sushit Basu in June/july 1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1400. 00 and that the premises were vacated by Ranjit Bose on or about 10th June, 1983. It was further pleaded that Ranjit Bose is the younger brother of Sushil Basu and both of