1984 Supreme(MP) 401

K. K. Shrivastava, J.
Gopal v. Kanbaiyalal.
Cr. R. No. 147 of 1982 (I); Decided on 30-7-1984.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P. C., 1973-S. 452-provlslon under-applies to Immoveable property 01 well.

       (2) Criminal P. C., 1973-8. 452-Penal Code, 1860-Ss. 448 and 506 accused acquitted of offence under Ss. 448 and 5o6 IPC-entry held rightful possession taken during investigation returned to accused--order proper.

       (3) Criminal P. Co, 1973-Ss. 397 and 401-d`revision petition under- no adjudication on fact or even on law can be demanded of right-interference only in case of substantial injustice.

       The petitioner Gopal lodged a report at police station Sailana on 16-11-80 that the respondent Kanhaiyalal after breaking open the lock had taken possession of his house and had threatened to kill him. A crime under section 448 and 506 IPC was registered an4 investigation was set afoot. Ultimately, respondent Kanhaiyalal1 Was prosecuted for offences under sections 448 and 506 IPC (vide Criminal Case No.485 of 1980).On 22-1.82, the case ended in acquittal on the ground that Kanhaiyalals entry in the house was rightful.

       The respondent Kanhaiyalal, 0n 1-2.1982, applied to the Magistrate that during investigation the police had sealed the house in question. He was in possession of the house in his own title and the civil litigation was also pending. It was prayed that in the circumstances, possession of the house should be deLi"Vered to him. The Magistrate obtained police report touching the application and passed the order dated 25-2-82 allowing the prayer of the respondent.

       Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner challenged it in appeal, but has been unsuccessful.

       Held: In the decision in Narsingharaos case (AIR 1967 Orissa 182) in which reliance has been placed on the decision reported in AIR 1961 MP 25 it has been held that Sec. 522(1) covered only those cases which ended in convictions and wherein dispossession of the property took place by application of criminal force or intimidation by an accused and that every other class of dispossession of the immoveable property came within the sweep of Sec. 517 (1) which speaks of any property. It has, therefore, to be held that the contention that Sec. 452 of the Cr. P. C. 1973 does not apply to immoveable property, has no force.

       In C. S. No. 209.A of 1980, of the Court of 4th Civil Judge Class II Ratlam, filed by the petitioner Gopal against Radhabai alias Radhibai and four others including the respondent, his application for grant of temporary injunction to him in relation to has possession of the house in question was dismissed on 3-11-1930 on the finding that the respondent was in possession of the house in his own right as purchaser from Smt. Radhabai. The certified copy of the order is on record of the criminal case referred to above.

       In the decision in Narsingharaos case (supra) it has been held that the Magistrate could order deLi"Very of possession of the property in exercise of inherent powers.

       In the decision in Ramamurthis case (AIR 1962 A. P. 263), during the course of investigation the police had evicted the accused from the house in question and had restored its possession to the complainant. The trial for offences under sections 448 and 457 IPC terminated in favour of the accused persons, and it was held that as no other specific provisions applicable to the special facts of the case order for restoration of possession to the accused should be passed to secure ends of justice so that the complainant does not get unfair advantage of evicting the accused in criminal proceedings though in fact no offence of trespass by the accused was proved.

       It may be pointed out that the revision petition does not clothe the petitioner with statutory right to demand an. adjudication from the Court either on a question of fact or on a question of law or upon both. The position is different in an appeal. The exercise of revisional power is discretionary with the Court and it interferes in execeptional cases where it seems that some real and substantial injustice has been done.

       On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, r am of the view that this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. AIR 1967 Orissa 182 and AIR 1962 A. P. 263 relied on. Revision dismissed.