Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. L. SHARMA
S.SUBRAMANIUM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRI. MISC. APPLN. 19858 Of 1993
Decided On : 03/15/1995
CRIMINAL TRESPASS - UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION - LANDLORD AND TENANT DISPUTE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 441, IPC - INHERENT POWERS OF THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482, CRPC - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between a landlord (opposite party No. 2) and a bank (applicants) over the possession of a leased property. The bank had been occupying the premises as a branch office and the residence of the branch manager. After the expiry of the lease period, the landlord served a notice to vacate the premises, but the bank continued to occupy it. The landlord filed a complaint against the bank officials under Sections 441 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging criminal trespass and criminal conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute between the landlord and the bank was a civil matter and did not constitute a criminal offense. The court held that the bank's possession of the premises, even after the expiry of the lease period, did not amount to unauthorized possession as defined under Section 441 of the IPC. The court also found that the allegations made in the complaint did not disclose any prima facie evidence of criminal trespass or criminal conspiracy.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute between the landlord and the bank was a civil matter or a criminal offense? 2. Whether the bank's possession of the premises after the expiry of the lease period amounted to unauthorized possession under Section 441 of the IPC? 3. Whether the allegations made in the complaint disclosed any prima facie evidence of criminal trespass or criminal conspiracy?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the dispute between the landlord and the bank was a civil matter and did not constitute a criminal offense. The court relied on the fact that the landlord had not filed a civil suit for rent and ejectment, but had instead filed a criminal complaint. The court also noted that the bank had been in correspondence with the landlord regarding the renewal of the lease and the payment of rent. 2. The court held that the bank's possession of the premises after the expiry of the lease period did not amount to unauthorized possession under Section 441 of the IPC. The court relied on the fact that the bank had entered into possession of the premises with the consent of the landlord and had paid rent for the period of occupation. The court also noted that the landlord had not provided the bank with additional accommodation as per the terms of the lease agreement. 3. The court held that the allegations made in the complaint did not disclose any prima facie evidence of criminal trespass or criminal conspiracy. The court found that the bank officials had not entered the premises with the intention of taking unauthorized possession or making unauthorized use of the property. The court also found that there was no evidence of any criminal conspiracy between the bank officials.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application under Section 482 of the CrPC and quashed the summoning order and the criminal proceedings against the bank officials. The court also directed the landlord to deposit Rs. 5,000 as costs within two months, failing which it would be realized as fine.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the summoning order as well as the criminal proceeding in complaint case No. 3435 of 1993 under Ss. 447, 120b, I. P. C. between Ajay Kumar Varma v. Subramaniam and others pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasia, Deoria.
( 2 ) I have heard Sri S. N. Varma, Senior Advocate and the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as well as learned A. G. A. and perused the material brought on record.
( 3 ) SINCE counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, the following admitted facts emerged from the pleadings :the opposite party No. 2 is the owner and landlord of the building situate on plot Nos. 2214/2 and 2215 of village Kasiya, Tappa Nanpur, Pargana Sidhua Jobna, Tehsil Padrauna, district Deoria. He let out the aforesaid premises for opening the branch of Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as bank) at Kasia in the district Deoria. The applicant No. 1 is the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Bank posted at its head quarter in Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Bombay. Applicant No. 2 is the Deputy General Manager of the Bank posted at the Zonal Office Akash Deep, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow. The applicant No. 3 is the Regional Manager posted in the Regional Office of Bank at Deoria. The applicant No. 4 is the Branch Manager of the Bank posted at Kasiya Branch district Deoria. After the settlement of the terms and conditions of the lease deed the opposite party No. 2 executed a lease deed in favour of the Branch Manager of the Bank at Kasiya with effect from 1-6-1978 and handed over the possession of the premises to the Branch Manager for the use of the Bank and for the use of the residence ofthe Branch Manager. The period of lease expired on 31-5-1989 but the Branch Office of the Bank and the residence of the Branch, Manager continued in the said premises without any interruption. The applicant No. 4 offered to execute a fresh lease deed at a monthly rent of Rs. 2. 00 per square feet of the total area subject to the condition that an additional area of 250 sq. feet will be provided for the residence of the Branch Manager and the residence in occupation of the Branch Manager will be released. The opposite party No. 2 desired to continue the lease at the enhanced rate with effect from 1-6-1989 and correspondence in this regard took place between the parties but some how the opposite party No. 2 did (not ?) execute the lease deed extending further period of lease and later on showed his inability to provide the additional accommodation of 250 sq. feet for the residence of Branch Manager. The opposite party terminated the tenancy of the bank and asked the applicant No. 4 to vacate the premises. However, bank could not vacate the premises and insisted upon the opposite party No. 2 to execute a fresh lease deed. The opposite party No. 2 served a notice under S. 441 of I. P. C. on 20-2-1992 on the applicants directing them to vacate the premises by 10 a. m. on 7-3-1993. The bank could not vacate the premises and Regional Manager sent a reply to the opposite party on 25-2-1993. The opposite party No. 2 sent a report to the S. P. Deoria against the applicant on 11-3-1993 and filed a complaint on 12-3-1993 before the A. C. J. M. Kasiya which was registered as complaint case No. 3435 of 1993 against all the applicants and after examining the complainant on 16-3-1993 and his two witnesses Vinod Kumar Srivastava and Salamat Ali on 22-3-1993, the learned A. C. J. M. was pleased to summon the applicants for the offence under Section 447/120-B, I. P. C. on 6-11-1993.
( 4 ) MR. S. N. Varma the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that the admitted facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 in the court of A. C. J. M. Kasiya is wholly misconceived a
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
