1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 224/2011 Dr. Krishnagopal s/o Vallabhdas Maheshwari vs. The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur (City), Nagpur and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. P.S.Khubalkar, Adv. For petitioner. Mr. T.A.Mirza, APP for R-1 & 2. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 29.06.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- original complainant and learned APP for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner lodged a F.I.R. under sections 454, 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent no.4 bearing Crime No. 24/11 at Koradi Police Station. Respondent no.3 is the landlord of the petitioner and respondent no.4 is the grand-son of respondent no.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the case is not being properly investigated and he prays that respondent no.4 be arrested and case be thoroughly investigated. The further prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner's possession over the 2` tenanted premises be restored. As far as this prayer is concerned, this is not a proper forum before which said prayer can be sought. It would be open to the petitioner to move appropriate forum for appropriate relief in relation to the possession of the tenanted premises. 3. We shall now deal with the first prayer. The petitioner is a doctor by profession. He is a retired Medical Officer. The petitioner is one of the tenants of respondent no.3 and was running his dispensary in the said premises at Saoner Road, Nagpur. According to the petitioner, he was in possession and occupation of three rooms in the house of respondent no.3 as a tenant. There was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.3 on account of the tenanted premises for the last 4 to 5 years. The affidavit filed by the investigating officer shows that respondent no.3 was asking the petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises for her bonafide use and the petitioner was demanding Rs. 1 lac for vacating the tenanted premises. 4. Meanwhile, the Central Government by virtue of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, conducted drive for removal of encroachment on 24.1.2011 and 25.1.2011 for the purpose of Road widening of Saoner Road. The dispensary of the petitioner came to be dismantled in the Encroachment Drive of the Government on 3` 24.1.2011. That all the other tenants of the respondent no.3 removed their articles from the tenanted shops to a safe place, before the encroachment drive date, but the petitioner in spite of information to that effect from the landlord i.e. Respondent no.3 and from other tenants, did not remove his articles lying in his tenanted premises. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that some articles which were lying in his dispensary were stolen. However, investigation reveals that said articles were lying open covered only by tin sheets, without making arrangement of security guard, from 24.1.2011 to 8.2.2011 i.e. for 15 days. It is revealed in the enquiry made in the nearby locality, that the petitioner never turned up at the tenanted premises except in the night hours after the encroachment removal i.e. on 24.1.2011 and directly on 8.2.2011, without verifying the situation and factual position, rushed to the police station, Koradi to lodge the report against the respondent no.4 with predetermined mind. The offence came to be registered vide Crime No. 24/2011 under sections 454, 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code on 8.2.2011 against the respondent no.4, and enquiry and statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded. It is revealed in the enquiry that the respondent no. 4 is the grand son of the respondent no.3 the landlord of the petitioner and is residing far away from the tenanted premises of the 4` petitioner and is in no way concerned with the alleged incident. The statements of the other tenants of the respondent no.3 shows that the report lodged by the petitioner is a false report. It is revealed that the petitioner did not take proper care of his own articles in spite of having complete information of encroachment drive of the government, nor did he make necessary arrangement for security of the same, and on the contrary, he is blaming the respondents with mala fide intention, which is reflected from the statements of almost all the relevant witnesses. There is no material to take stern action against the respondent no.4, who is a student of engineering and grandson of respondent no.3 in relation to this incident. It may be stated that he has no antecedents. On the contrary, it is found that the petitioner is taking advantage of the tenancy, and without taking proper care of his own articles, appears to be making false and baseless allegations against the respondents. The statements of the relevant witnesses of the locality and particularly those who were in the same premises and other tenants of same building namely I) Krishna Ajabrao Chaudhary and ii) Natthu Ramchandra Nitnaware are found contrary to the allegations made by the petitioner. It is in this view of the matter, that respondent no.4 is not being arrested. It is noticed that the petitioner has also filed a civil suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 12/11 which is pending before the Civil Court in relation to these 5` premises. 6. In view of the above facts, no case is made out for passing any directions in this matter. 7. In view of the above, the petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE patle