SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(All) 96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. Mulla, J.
MIRZA MOHD.AZIZ - Appellant
Versus
SAFDAR HUSAIN - Respondents
Criminal Revn. 63 Of 1961
Decided On : 07/28/1961

Advocates Appeared:
G.H.Naqvi, Ghulam Imam, Ram Chandra Sinha, Shanker Sahai

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1898 - SECTION 145 - SECTION 540 - JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS - APPREHENSION OF BREACH OF PEACE - EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES - CONFLICT OF DECISIONS - CIVIL COURT INJUNCTION - ENFORCEABILITY OF CRIMINAL COURT ORDER.

Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose between Mirza Mohd. Aziz (applicant) and Safdar Husain and Asghar Husain (respondents) over the possession of a room. The respondents were sub-tenants of the applicant and had been in possession of the room for a considerable time. After one of the respondents left for Bombay, the applicant tried to retake possession of the room, leading to a dispute and apprehension of a breach of peace.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the criminal courts had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute as there was an apprehension of a breach of peace. The court also held that the magistrate did not err in examining a witness under Section 540, Cr.P.C., even though the witness had not filed an affidavit earlier. However, the court held that the order passed by the criminal court could not be enforced as it was in conflict with a temporary injunction issued by a civil court.

Issues: 1. Whether the criminal courts had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute. 2. Whether the magistrate erred in examining a witness under Section 540, Cr.P.C., without the witness having filed an affidavit earlier. 3. Whether the order passed by the criminal court could be enforced in light of the temporary injunction issued by the civil court.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of criminal courts is based on the apprehension of a breach of peace. In this case, the dispute between the parties and the applicant's refusal to hand over the keys to the respondents revived the danger of a breach of peace, giving the criminal courts jurisdiction to intervene. 2. Section 540, Cr.P.C., empowers courts to summon and examine witnesses at any stage of an inquiry or trial. The proviso to Section 145(4), Cr.P.C., which restricts the examination of witnesses to those who have filed affidavits, is limited to witnesses named by the parties to the dispute. Therefore, the magistrate did not err in examining the witness under Section 540, Cr.P.C. 3. To avoid conflict of decisions, orders of competent civil courts should be given precedence over orders of criminal courts in disputes of a civil nature. The temporary injunction issued by the civil court limited the operation of the criminal court's order while the injunction was in force.

Final Decision: The revision application was dismissed, but the criminal court's order could not be enforced due to the temporary injunction issued by the civil court.

A. N. MULLA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision in a case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) ONE Mirza Mohammad Aziz filed an application against Safdar Husain and Asghar Husain before the Deputy Superintendent of Police that they were threatening to take possession over a room in his house which was in his possession and this application was filed on the 19th July, 1959. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Lucknow sent it to a subordinate police officer who reported that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace. This complaint was then forwarded to the Additional City Magistrate who took cognizance of it and passed a preliminary order on the 14th of November, 1959. The parties were then asked to file their affidavits and produce their documentary evidence and the Magistrate by his final order dated the 12tli January, 1961, handed over the disputed property to Safdar Husain and Asghar Husain and as the keys of the room were with one Nawab ghaznafar Ali Khan, he in order to facilitate the taking over of possession by Safdar Husain and asghar Husain directed that he should hand over the keys to Asghar Husain and Safdar Husain. Immediately after the criminal courts passed this order Mirza Mohd. Aziz went up in revision against the order of the Magistrate but this revision was dismissed. He then came up in revision before this Court and I am hearing it today.

( 3 ) THE counsel for the applicant contended that as his client has filed a suit in the civil courts and the civil courts have issued a temporary injunction stopping Safdar Husain and Asghar from taking possession of the room according to the orders of the Magistrate, I should allow this revision and set aside the order of the Magistrate, The counsel on the other side, however, contends that the Magistrate had passed this order when he was competent to do so and any subsequent action taken by Mirza Mohd. Aziz cannot make the order passed by the Magistrate as illegal or non-compliable. He contends that he has gone in appeal before the District Judge against the temporary injunction issued by the Munsif North Lucknow and that appeal is pending. It may be that the District Judge allows this appeal then the order of the Magistrate would be enforceable. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and in my opinion the order of the Magistrate cannot be treated as a dead letter. There is no legal defect in the order passed by the Magistrate and it cannot be said that he had no jurisdiction to pass this order. In order to illustrate this point it is necessary to give a few facts which form the background of this case.

( 4 ) IT appears that Safdar Husain and Asghar Husain were the sub-tenants of Mirza Mohd. Aziz and admittedly for quite appreciable time they were in possession of the disputed room as asghar Husain was carrying On business in that room. Then Asghar Husain went away to bombay but his signboard remained outside this room. After the departure of Asghar Husain mirza Mohd. Aziz wanted to retake possession of this room but Safdar Husain objected to it and there was a dispute between them which created an apprehension of a breach of peace. This apprehension can easily be inferred because some criminal cases were filed and the matter went before the courts of law. The common friends who were interested in both the parties then intervened and they tried to bring about a compromise. An agreement was drafted and it appears that it was acceptable to both the parties. This agreement was scribed on the 19th of June, 1959 and one of the terms of this agreement was that if Asghar Husain returned within two months from Bombay he will be given possession of this room. The keys of the room were placed with one Nawab Ghaznafar Ali Khan. Asghar hussain came back within a fortnight and so Safdar Husain and Asghar Husain wanted to take the keys of the disputed room from Nawab Ghaznafar Ali Khan. Instead of accepting the terms of the agreement Mirza Mohd










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top