Full Text
Translation output
Crl.MC No.3838/2010 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3838/2010 & Crl.M.A.No. 18396/2010
BACHAN SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K.Chauhan, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 3838/2010 & Crl.M.A.No. 18396/2010
BACHAN SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K.Chauhan, Advocate
VERSUS
DARSHAN KUMAR ..... Respondent
CORAM:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA O R D E R (ORAL)
10.12.2010
In proceedings under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. property – plot/H.
No. X/1274 Gali No.2 Satsang Marg, Raj Gargh Colony, Krishna Nagar
(Gandhi Nagar), Delhi was attached on the apprehension of breach of peace due to dispute over possession of the property, thereafter the proceedings continued with the SDM in order to find out as to who was in actual possession. The learned SDM after considering the evidence produced by both the parties came to the conclusion that it was second party who was in possession of the property on the date of quarrel and accordingly vide order dated 21st February, 2008 he directed that the property be de-sealed and possession be handed over to the second party. A revision was preferred against the order of SDM before the Sessions Judge and learned Session
Judge after considering the material produced before the Court of SDM and the evidence of both the parties passed order on 15th April, 2010 holding that the order of learned SDM was passed on cogent evidence and the learned
SDM rightly came to the conclusion that the party no.2 was in possession.
2010:DHC:6006 Crl.MC No.3838/2010 By present petition, the orders of learned SDM and learned Sessions
Judge have been assailed on the ground that two Courts wrongly gave finding that party no.2 was in possession.
It is settled law that this Court in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot upset the concurrent finding of fact of two Courts below. The two
Courts below after considering evidence had come to the conclusion that it was party no.2, who was owner and was in possession of the property and party no. 1 was not in possession. I find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J DECEMBER 10, 2010 vn 2010:DHC:6006
10.12.2010
In proceedings under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. property – plot/H.
No. X/1274 Gali No.2 Satsang Marg, Raj Gargh Colony, Krishna Nagar
(Gandhi Nagar), Delhi was attached on the apprehension of breach of peace due to dispute over possession of the property, thereafter the proceedings continued with the SDM in order to find out as to who was in actual possession. The learned SDM after considering the evidence produced by both the parties came to the conclusion that it was second party who was in possession of the property on the date of quarrel and accordingly vide order dated 21st February, 2008 he directed that the property be de-sealed and possession be handed over to the second party. A revision was preferred against the order of SDM before the Sessions Judge and learned Session
Judge after considering the material produced before the Court of SDM and the evidence of both the parties passed order on 15th April, 2010 holding that the order of learned SDM was passed on cogent evidence and the learned
SDM rightly came to the conclusion that the party no.2 was in possession.
2010:DHC:6006 Crl.MC No.3838/2010 By present petition, the orders of learned SDM and learned Sessions
Judge have been assailed on the ground that two Courts wrongly gave finding that party no.2 was in possession.
It is settled law that this Court in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot upset the concurrent finding of fact of two Courts below. The two
Courts below after considering evidence had come to the conclusion that it was party no.2, who was owner and was in possession of the property and party no. 1 was not in possession. I find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J DECEMBER 10, 2010 vn 2010:DHC:6006
JUDGMENT