Crl. M.C. No. 1581 & 992 of 2007 Page 1 A-18 & 19 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on : March 18, 2009 Judgment delivered on : March 25, 2009 + (1) Crl. M.C. No. 1581/2007 % Padam Chand and Anr. ... Petitioners Through: Mr. J.L. Gupta, Advocate versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. … Respondents Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional public Prosecutor for the State + (2) Crl. M.C. No. 992/2007 % J.C. Gupta and Co. ...Petitioners Through: Mr. J.L. Gupta, Advocate Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Another ...Respondents Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SUNIL GAUR, J. 1. The order impugned in the above captioned petitions is of 23rd February, 2007, of the revisional court passed in Crl. M.C. No. 1581 & 992 of 2007 Page 2 Criminal Revision No. 89/2006, whereby a direction has been given to the trial court to take steps in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-Section 5 of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concerning restoration of the possession of the property in question to the party from whom it was taken. 2. Since the order impugned in these two petitions is common one, therefore, these two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. After having heard both sides and upon perusal of the impugned order as well as record of this case, it emerges that in the impugned order, perhaps due to a typographical error, provision of law has been incorrectly quoted. The restoration of the possession of the property in question to the party from whom it was taken, can be done by resorting the Sub-Section 6 read with Sub Section 4 of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not by resort to Sub- Section 5 of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Be that as it may. The admitted position is that proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were dropped vide order of 26th August, 2005. The possession of the property in question, during the aforesaid proceedings, was taken from respondent No.2 and was Crl. M.C. No. 1581 & 992 of 2007 Page 3 delivered to petitioners- Padam Chand and his wife- Rani Devi, who in turn had rented out the property in question to J.C. Gupta, who is the petitioner in Criminal M.C. No. 992/2007. 5. It is true that aforesaid petitioner- J.C. Gupta was not a party to the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was not a party to the revisional proceedings, from which the impugned order springs out, therefore, strictly speaking, petitioner- J.C.Gupta has no locus standi to file Criminal M.C. No. 992/2007. 6. Since the impugned order is under scrutiny in Criminal M.C. No. 1581/2007 of Padam Chand, therefore, instead of not-suiting petitioner- J.C. Gupta on the ground of jurisdiction, this court proceeds to examine the impugned order on merits. 7. Upon doing so, it is found that the decisions reported in UP, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 619; 106 (2003) DLT 388; 117 (2005) DLT 417, 2 SCR 69 and (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 769, relied upon by the petitioners deal with an altogether different proposition and therefore, they do not advance the case of the petitioners herein, in any manner whatsoever. For instance, the question of “settled possession” considered by the Apex Court, in its decision Crl. M.C. No. 1581 & 992 of 2007 Page 4 reported in 2004 (1) SCC 769, is of no relevance in the facts of the present case. It is noted in the impugned order that the trial court had not restored the possession of the property in dispute to the petitioners (respondents herein), when the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were dropped on 26th August, 2005. 8. The aforesaid order of 26th August, 2005, had admittedly attained finality. The revisional court in the impugned order has relied upon the case of Sankatha Prasad Mishra and others reported in 1977 Crl. L. J. 361 to hold as under:- “Therefore, it is evident that when possession of the property was taken from petitioner and proceedings have been dropped by the learned Magistrate, since he lacked jurisdiction for want of preliminary order under Sub-Section (1) of Section 145 of the Code, the magistrate is under an obligation to restore the possession to the petitioner”. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have not been able to distinguish the aforesaid decision in Sankatha Prasad Mishra and others (supra), relied upon by the trial court. 10. Since the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have been dropped on account of lack of jurisdiction, therefore, possession of the property in Crl. M.C. No. 1581 & 992 of 2007 Page 5 question, has to be restored to the person, from whom it was taken. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. There is no merit in these two petitions and, therefore, they are accordingly dismissed. 11. These two petitions stand accordingly disposed of. Sunil Gaur, J. March 25, 2009 rs