It is alleged by the appellant that accused succeeded in pressurizing and influencing the Government to withdraw the prosecution against all accused and thereafter public prosecutor filed an application for withdrawal of the prosecution.
Therefore, possession was taken in presence of the police companystables.
The main accused Anakaputhur Ramalingam was arrested on 19th July, 1988.
On 21st May, 1986, the companyplaint was sent to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai for immediate action against the trespassers.
Hence, the CB CID police filed the charge sheet against all the accused for the offence punishable under sections 147, 149, 441, 352, 380 and 341 of IPC in the Court of Addl.
Subsequently, the respondent the Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co operative Society Ltd., Madras purchased the said premises and, therefore, the appellant was paying rent regularly to it.
In the meantime, within a period of six months from the date of dispossession, on 25.9.1986, appellant filed OS No.6998 of 1986 for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Act.
That writ petition was allowed by the High Court on 3rd May, 1988 and the Court directed the CB CID to investigate the companyplaint of the appellant.
Respondent filed written statement and pleaded that appellant had informed them that he has vacated the premises and it was open to the respondent to take the possession either on 19th or 20th May, 1986.
Thereafter, on 16th June, 1986, appellant filed Writ Petition No.5382 of 1986 for a direction to the police to take appropriate action on the companyplaint filed by the appellant.
On such direction, CB CID registered the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 341 and 441 of IPC.
However, on 20th May, 1986 at about 7.30 p.m., while the work of re modelling of shop was going on, one Mr. Anakaputhur Ramalingam and about 20 Co Optex Workers with the help of police forcibly trespassed into the tenanted premises.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
Thereafter, on 18.6.1991, the Government of Tamilnadu accorded sanction to prosecute the case against the accused.
In 1978, respondent filed Civil Suit for getting the premises vacated from the appellant.
Unfortunately, after companysidering all the relevant facts which were brought on record, the High Court remanded the proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Act for reconsideration by the trial companyrt.
Against the said judgment and order, appellant preferred C.R.P. No.1818 of 1996 before the High Court of Madras.
Despite the representation made to the higher authorities as police had number taken any action, appellant preferred Writ Petition before the High Court and the High Court directed the CB CID to investigate the case.
They took forcible possession despite the fact their Civil Suit for eviction was pending in the companyrt.
Considering the facts stated above, the High Court allowed the petition.
During the pendency of the proceedings, appellant gave a power of attorney to one Muralidhar Balani to run business of India Watch House, hence Balani was getting the said shop re modelled.
On the same day, appellant filed a companyplaint but the police did number take any action on it.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
Permission to withdraw the prosecution case was granted by the ACMM on 15th October, 1993.
Thereafter the charge sheet was submitted Government granted sanction however, for the reasons best known to it, the Government withdrew the criminal proceedings.
From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that pending suit filed by the respondent for evicting the appellant, the respondent took forcible possession of the tenanted premises, for that purpose appellant had lodged criminal companyplaint on the same day and as numberaction was taken, he had informed various authorities immediately.
However, the High Court held that in the interest of justice the matter requires to be remanded to the trial companyrt for fresh companysideration of the evidence and proper disposal.
On 31st May, 1986 telegraphic companyplaints were sent to the Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Police.
That order is challenged in this appeal.
Shah, J. Leave granted.
The appellant who was forcibly and illegally dispossessed since May 1986 from the tenanted premises by his landlord is moving from pillar to post for getting justice.
