in between the parties there were also certain criminal proceedings regarding the theft from and house trespass on the same premises.
in respect of a shop premises.
on september 27 1985 that revision was dismissed.
on july 15 1985 the respondent filed a suit for injunction.
that it seems that he received the rent in advance executed the rent deed and transferred the possession to appellant jhummamal.
1982 on which summons were issued by the companyrt under sec.
in that proceedings the petitioner was party number 2 and respondent pg number586 number 2 was party number 1 on august 13 1982 the magistrate made a preliminary order.
on that report the respondent was prosecuted under secs.
the respondent moved the high companyrt under sec.
the suit was dismissed on february 28 1981.
the high court refused to interfere with that order.
the entering of possession by the petitioner became a subject matter of dispute.
apprehending breach of peace the police initiated proceedings under sec.
1986 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in misc.
the shop was in possession of one asgarali son of akbar ali as mortgagee since october 17 1969.
145 cr.p.c.
the learned first additional district judge who delivered the judgment in that appeal has recorded the following findings consequently it is clear from the above analysis that asgar ali was in possession of the disputed shop till 7.
but upon appeal he as acquitted by the additional district judge.
respondent and his brothers put their locks later on.
but unfortunately the petitioner companyld number be put into possession.
a companyple of days before the preliminary order was made under sec.
but upon appeal that temporary injunction was vacated.
khare and t.c.
the appeal is directed against the order of the high court of madhya pradesh dated april 35 1986 quashing the final order made under sec.
criminal case number 1 135 of 1985.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 139 of 1987.
145 cr.p.c.
145 6 of the cr.p.c.
the revision against the order of acquittal was also dismissed by the high companyrt.
and pg number587 as in my opinion on the date of occurrence of incident jhummamal was in possession of the shop respondentplaintiff does number have a prima facie case in his favour hence i believe that the temporary injunction order passed by the lower companyrt is number just and as per law.
sharma for the respondents.
it seems to be his prima facie right to rent out the shop.
145 cr.p.c.
380 and 454 of the ipc.
the proceedings u s 145 cr.p.c.
from the judgment and order dated 25.4.
hence i believe that jhummamal obtained the possession of the disputed shop in the capacity as tenant.
shanti bhushan k.m.
the matter was taken up in appeal.
145 cr.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by jagannatha shetty j. we grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.
a relation of the appellant filed report before the police companyplaining against the respondent.
it may also be relevant to state that the respondent challenged the final order under sec.
gaur and ms.
on august 7 1982 asgarali was said to have leased out the shop to the petitioner and also delivered possession thereof.
the proceedings companytinued for about three years.
rani jethmalani for the appellant.
companysequently while disagreeing with the order passed by the lower companyrt i accept the appeal and quash the order passed by the lower companyrt.
after becoming unsuccessfull in the proceedings under sec.
gambhir sanjay sarin s.n.
in a revision before the sessions judge.
482 of cr.p.c.
poti s.k.
on february 22 1984 he was companyvicted of the said offences.
145 4 of cr.p.c.
before the additional district magistrate ujjain.
145 cr.
but this companyrt quashed the proceedings under sec.
on august 14 1985 he obtained temporary injunction against the appellant.
and also before civil companyrt in the suit to or injunction.
145 of cr.
145 cr.p.c.
as it is mentioned above the first information report lodged by kanhayalal on behalf of jhummamal in which it is stated that jhummamal obtained possession on 9.8.82 does number seem right when only respondent has demanded possession in his petition dated 13.8.82.
tiwari l.p.
were initiated with regard to the same property.
r. lalit number present p.s.
