Criminal Application rejected as further investigation is necessary into allegations that applicants created disputes in rented premises. Disputed questions of fact regarding possession preclude extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Application rejected; no further action granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Sherla V.
921_apl.405.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.405 OF 2021
Jyoti Shyam Singh Yadav & Others … Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & another … Respondents
Mr.G.B. Solake for the Applicants Ms.Sangeeta Shinde, APP, for Respondent – State Ms.Pooja Joshi i/b Mr.A.M. Saraogi for Respondent No.2
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATED: AUGUST 23, 2021
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants as also the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and the learned APP appearing for the Respondent – State.
2. We have carefully perused the allegations in the First Information Report and also the reply filed by Respondent No.2. In our view, for more than one reasons, the prayers in the application cannot be entertained. In the first place, further investigation is necessary. It is alleged by Respondent No.2 that it is the modus
Page 1 of 3
921_apl.405.2021.doc
operandi of the applicants to take premises on rent and then create dispute or put those premises for sale by publishing advertisements. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 has invited our attention to the copy of one such advertisement.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants that pursuant to the leave and licence agreement, the possession of the premises is taken, is to be viewed in the attendant circumstances and also the material placed on record by Respondent No.2.
4. The submission on behalf of the applicants that they were put in possession of the subject premises under the leave and licence agreement is in the arena of disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
5. If the allegations in the First Information Report are taken at their facevalue and read in their entirety, the alleged offences are disclosed and further investigation is warranted.
6. The observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present application
Page 2 of 3
921_apl.405.2021.doc
and shall not be construed as an impediment to the applicants to avail of an appropriate remedy as available in law in the event of filing chargesheet by the Investigating Officer.
7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Application is rejected.
(N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
Digitally signed by VISHWANATH VISHWANATH SATYANARAYANA SATYANARAYANA SHERLA SHERLA Date: 2021.08.25 10:15:03 +0530
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether further investigation is warranted given allegations that applicants created disputes in rented premises.
Whether disputed questions of fact regarding possession can be decided in criminal appellate jurisdiction.
State of Maharashtra
another
S.S. SHINDE
N.J. JAMADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
