Back
2011(2) RCR(Cri) 789
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Mukesh Sharma son of Sh Gauri Shankar r/o H. No. 3581, Sector-23-D, Chandigarh -Petitioner
Versus
U.T. Administration, Chandigarh, and others –Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. M-13425 of 2008 (O/M)
Decided on: September 02, 2009.
F.I.R. - Quashing of F.I.R. - Section 188 I.P.C. - [Section 188 I.P.C.] - The court discussed the requirements for an accommodation to be termed as paying guest accommodation and the notification specifying the same. It highlighted the need for charging for food and accommodation for a place to be considered as paying guest accommodation. The court emphasized that the purpose of the notification was to regulate paying guest facilities and prevent abuse by anti-social elements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an F.I.R. registered against him under Section 188 I.P.C. for allegedly violating the order of the District Magistrate by not providing information about tenants residing in his accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had provided information about the tenants through e-Sampark Centre, and the alleged violation of the notification was not established. It emphasized that the purpose of the notification was to regulate paying guest facilities and prevent abuse by anti-social elements.
Issues: Determining whether the petitioner provided paying guest accommodation and whether the information provided was accurate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the alleged violation of the notification was not established, and the F.I.R. was quashed.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the F.I.R. under Section 188 I.P.C. was quashed.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, praying for quashing of F.I.R. No. 79, dated 11.05.2008 under Section 188 I.P.C., Police Station Sector-19, Chandigarh, being false, frivolous and misuse of process of law.
2. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner is owner of barsati portion of H. No. 19, Sector-18-A, Chandigarh, which is a 10 marla house and the first floor and the ground floor are owned by other persons. The barsati portion contains three rooms and had been rented out by the petitioner to five students with effect from 01.03.2008, details of those students is mentioned in para-3 of the petition. Immediately on letting out of the portion to the tenants, the petitioner as per requirement of law, intimated the Chandigarh Administration at e-Sampark Centre, Sector-18, Chandigarh, vide receipts No. 20813686 and 20813687, dated 12.03.2008. He stated that the e-Sampark Centres have been established by the Chandigarh Administration, which provides services to the general public and citizen. The services offered at the e-Sampark Centre had been mentioned on the back side of the receipts itself. At Serial No. 7 of the abovementioned receipts under the heading, the name of the Department “Chandigarh Police” and under the heading the citizen friendly services provided, it has been mentioned as Tenant Registration, Domestic Servants Registration, Payment of General, Sticker and Postal Challan. On the basis of these receipts, it has been stated that the petitioner had complied with the requirement of law as these five students were residing as tenants in the three rooms of barsati portion of House No. 19, Sector-18, Chandigarh. Some outsiders and tenants had a fight in the premises, resulting in registration of F.I.R. No. 78 under Sections 307, 34 I.P.C. dated 11.05.2008 as one of them suffered serious injury. A separate F.I.R. being F.I.R. No. 79 dated 11.05.2008 was registered against the petitioner on the ground that the records of the boys living at the top floor of House no. 19, Sector-18, Chandigarh, checked in the beat box register, but no information was found recorded therein. 4-4 boys and 6-7 boys were living in each rooms, therefore, the petitioner, who is the owner of the barsati portion in question, has violated the order of District Magistrate issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C., vide order No. DM/MA/08/3452 , dated 14.03.2008 and, therefore, an offence under Section 188 I.P.C. is found to have been committed by the petitioner. Copy of the F.I.R. is appended as Annexure-P-3.
3. The petitioner, thereafter, on coming to know about registration of the F.I.R., approached the Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was granted by the Lower Court, Chandigarh. He, thereafter, preferred a written representation and also met Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on 15.05.2008, stating therein the details as has been mentioned above with regard to information, which he had supplied to e-Sampark Centre, Sector-18, Chandigarh, and an enquiry was marked to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, who further marked it to the D.S.P. (E), Chandigarh, and it was found, as per the inquiry, that the petitioner had submitted information about two persons as tenant on 12.03.2008 and the information was not complete. It was also concluded that information regarding nine persons was not furnished by the petitioner and, therefore, complaint dated 21.11.2008 under Section 195 Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court of District Magistrate, Chandigarh.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the assertion of Chandigarh Administration that there were 11 persons residing in the premises in question and that too as paying guest is incorrect. For terming a kothi/house as paying guest, the requirement is that food should also be supplied to the person residing in the premises. It is nowhere the contention of the Chandigarh Administration that the food
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
