The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the prayer that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents, more particularly, the respondent no.2 not to allow the respondent nos.6 and 7 from disturbing the possession of the petitioner in his premises mentioned in the petition and restrain them from filing false FIR on the grounds stated in the petition.
Heard Shri A.N. Guliwala, who appears as party-in-person on behalf of all petitioners and who is also Advocate as stated in the petition and learned APP Mr.H.L. Jani for the respondent no.1-State.
Learned APP Mr.Jani has referred to the papers and submitted that such prayers cannot be entertained and as Civil Court has already granted status quo, no further orders are required to be passed. He has also stated that other may also file complaint, which cannot be prevented. He further submitted that this petition is by way of abuse of process of law. He has referred to the papers and submitted that Inquiry Case No.26 of 2011 is already pending before the Court of Magistrate.
A bare perusal of the papers and the averments including the application given to the Commissioner of Police and other Annexures, it would make it clear that there is civil dispute with regard to the property, which is not sought to be given a criminal colour. Admittedly, Civil Suit has been filed and the City Civil & Sessions Court has passed an order in Civil Suit No.2034 of 2011 directing the parties to maintain status quo. Therefore, part of the prayer which is claimed in this petition for the possession has been taken care of and if there is any breach or violation, the appropriate remedy could be availed of before the same Court as may be advised.
Another aspect of the prayer for restraining other side from filing FIR cannot be entertained as nobody can be prevented from approaching the authority or the Court for redressing the grievances and it cannot be readily accepted that it would be a false complaint. The application given by the petitioner and the record itself suggest that there is a past history and other proceedings also including Chapter Case and admittedly as stated by the petitioner, action was taken under Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner. It also transpires that some proceedings are also going on before the Metropolitan Magistrate, in which, an order under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code has already been passed dated 18.06.2011, which is not conveniently referred or produced nor any specific number or details have been given. There is also a reference to the Criminal Inquiry Case No.26 of 2011 and considering the aforesaid details, the present petition cannot be entertained.
The party-in-person who is Advocate has claimed that he has right to approach the Court for the protection of his right and he is receiving threats or harassment is being caused, which can be considered in the proceedings before the Court of Magistrate. Therefore, there is no question of exercising any extra ordinary or inherent jurisdiction.
Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) /patil Top