1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1064


Mr. Baliram Ramchandra Bobhate Vs. Mr. Dattaram Ramchandra Bobhate & Anr.,

Cri. Writ Petition No. 1143 of 1992

3rd May, 1999

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. M. S. MOHITE
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. JYOTI S. PAWAR, A.P.P.

Constitution of India, Art.226 - Concurrent findings - Interference - Dispute about property - Proceedings under Ss.107 and 145 Criminal P.C. dropped - Parties taking recourse to Civil Court - No error or irregularity in orders of both lower courts - High Court cannot interfere with rules in writ petition. (Para 2, 4)


JUDGMENT :- This Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner/original accused, being aggrieved by the order dated 23rd July, 1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No. 292 of 1991 made by the petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr. Mohite for Petitioner, so also, Mrs. Jyoti S. Pawar, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.2 - State. I have also perused the proceedings. It appears that the original applicant had filed an application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Bandra Bombay. It appears that the petitioner Baliram Ramchandra Bobhate and the Respondent No.1 Dattaram Ramchandra Bobhate are real brothers and dispute is between them with respect to their tenanted premises, situated at E/18/12 Rajarashi Shahu Nagar, Dharavi, Bombay - 400 017. It is a one room tenement, consisting of a hall, Kitchen and balcony. It also appears that the Magistrate, after dropping proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also dropped proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as according to the Magistrate, there was no breach of peace, nor any apprehension of the breach of peace, as the Petitioner had already taken recourse to Civil remedy by filing a Civil Suit No. 2659 of 1989 in the Bombay City Civil Court, which is pending.

3. It is observed by the Lower Court in para 3 of the impugned order that the dispossession was not forcible, and the panchanama did not corroborate the story of the original applicant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also made observations about the delay in making application.

4. In my opinion, there is no error or irregularity in the orders of both the Lower Courts, so as to warrant interference by its Court in writ jurisdiction. Hence, the following order :

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1143 of 1992 is dismissed. Rule, discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated.

Any observation made in this order, not to affect the Petitioner's rights, if any, which he has agitated in his Civil Suit No. 2659 of 1989, which is pending in the Bombay City Civil Court.

Petition dismissed