Crl.M.C. No.2204/2008 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. No.2204/2008 % Date of Decision : 16.07.2008 Balbir Singh Sawhney ….… Petitioner Through: Mr.Manoj Khanna, Advocate. Versus The State & Others ......... Respondents Through : Mr.R.N.Vats, APP for the State. CORAM :- * HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? ANIL KUMAR, J. * Crl.M.A. No.8168/2008 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. Crl.M.C. No.2204/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.8167/2008 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th April, 2008 passed by Shri H.S. Sharma, Additional District & Sessions Judge, dismissing the revision petition against the order dated 9th October, Crl.M.C. No.2204/2008 Page 2 of 4 2007 of Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDM (Kotwali), Delhi, in proceedings under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the petitioner was directed to share joint possession with respondents No.2 and 3 and dropping the proceedings initiated on the basis of police kalandra. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Khanna, has very vehemently contended that the petitioner is not in joint possession of the premises in dispute and in any case the question of possession is a question of fact which could not be decided in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the question of possession could be decided only by a court of competent jurisdiction and not by the SDM. The counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no evidence to show that respondents No.2 and 3 were in joint possession and that the Ld. ASJ has failed to consider the proceedings relating to succession of the shop filed by the legal heirs of the deceased landlord where the petitioner has only been asked to deposit the rent. The petitioner was running a proprietorship business till 31st December, 1997 and from 1st January, 1998, a partnership deed was executed between the parties. The signatures of the parties are admitted Crl.M.C. No.2204/2008 Page 3 of 4 on the partnership deed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said partnership deed was not acted upon. Perusal of the orders and the record reveals that petitioner had admitted before the court on 28th October, 2006 that he had sent a letter to the competent authority of the Sales Tax Department for the necessary amendments in the registration certificate of sales tax and consequently amendment was carried out in the constitution of the firm. Since, at the instance of the petitioner, the change in constitution of firm was carried out, the learned Magistrate held that the respondents No.2 and 3 were in joint possession and consequently it was held that there was no jurisdiction under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code to initiate the proceedings. The petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 are related, being son, mother and granddaughter. The revisional court also held that the sales tax form, dated 21st July, 1998, was filed wherein respondents No.2 and 3 were added as partners with effect from 1st August, 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said form was cancelled and has relied on a dealers profile showing that no business was done from 2003-04 to 2006-07. However, in the said form in the column “details of proprietor/partners,” it is stipulated that it is not available. On the Crl.M.C. No.2204/2008 Page 4 of 4 basis of the said form also it could not be inferred that the partnership deed filed by the petitioner indicating respondent Nos.2 and 3 as partners could be cancelled and was cancelled as allegedly it was not acted upon. The courts below have considered all the documents produced by the parties and their effect and there is no material illegality or such error in the order impugned before this Court which will require interference by this court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition, in the circumstances, is without any merit and it is dismissed. July 16, 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘Dev’