Holding

The Supreme Court held that the respondent's Section 482 application was an abuse of process and set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appellants to retain possession pending the outcome of the title suit.

Summary

The appellants owned a residential house from which Respondent No. 4, a tenant, was evicted after a civil decree in the appellants' favour. The appellants took physical possession with police assistance. Respondent claimed a sale agreement, filed a title suit, and later opened fire to retake possession, leading to a criminal case. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, under Section 144 CrPC, restrained both parties and later ordered possession restored to the appellants; his subsequent dismissal of a Section 145 application by the respondent became final. Respondent then filed a Section 482 application before the High Court seeking police possession of the house pending the title suit, and the High Court ordered the police to hold the property. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred, noting that the appellants already had possession by execution of the civil decree and that the Section 482 petition was an abuse of process, setting aside the High Court order and allowing the appellants to remain in possession until the title suit is finally decided.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was correct in directing police possession of the house pending the pending title suit.
Whether the application under Section 482 CrPC by the respondent constitutes an abuse of process.
Whether the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate's order under Section 144 CrPC restored possession to the appellants.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1976s. 144, s. 145, s. 482

Subjects

evictiontenancypossessionSection 144 CrPCSection 145 CrPCSection 482 CrPCabuse of processcivil decree executionpolice possessiontitle suit

Judgment

RA VI RAMAN PRASAD AND ANR. A
;... v.
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

FEBRUARY 2, 1993

[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, CJ., K. RAMASWAMY AND B
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
)!"
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1976:

Sections 144, 145, 482-f'roperty restored to owner-Tenant restrained
from entering the property-Fresh applic'!tion by tenant rejected-Order be-
c
coming final -On application by tenant High Court directing Police to take
possession till disposal of 7itle Suit filed by him -Validity of.

Respondent No. 4 was a tenant in a residential house owned by the
appellants. He claimed that there was an agreement for sale of the property D
to blm and in part performance thereof be continued in possession of the
house and therefore be could not be evicted. An eviction suit filed by the
appellants against Respondent No. 4 was decreed. In execution of the
decree, the appellants were put in physical possession of the house with
,..I.. the aid of police force. Thereafter in a bid to take over possession of the
E
said house, Respondent No. 4 opened lire and the appellants lodged FIR
with the police. Proceedings under section 144 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was drawn up by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The proceed-
ings ended In favour of the appellants, and Respondent No. 4 was
restrained from entering upon the property. The Criminal Revision Peti-
lion preferred by Respondent No. 4 was dismissed by the High Court. F
....>- Later, Respondent No. 4 again filed an application before the S.D.M.
for initiating proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C. and the same was
dismissed. Since this order was not challenged, it became final.

Thereafter Respondent No. 4 filed a Title Suit. He also filed an G
application under section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court claiming the
-l same relief as was claimed before the .S.D.M. The High Court in its
judgment directed that the possession of the house shall be with the police
.• till tbe disposal of the suit. The appellant's application for recalling the
judgment was rejected by the High Court. Being aggrieved by the said H
393
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 1 S.C.R.
A judgment , the appellants prefen-ed the present appeals.
Allowing th• appeals, this Court,

HELD : 1. The High Ccmrt failed to appreciate the crucial fact that
the appellants were nqt put in possession of the property by the Sub-
B Divisional Magistrate o~ the termination of the proceeding under Section
144 Cr.P.C. but had obtained actual physical possession thereof earlier in
the execution of the eviction decree with police aid and the status quo was
restored by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while disposing of the proceed-
ing under section 144 Cr.P.C. and dismissing the application of respondent
C No. 4 for starting a fresh proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. On the
finding arrived at by him, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate took the right
step in restoring the possession of the property to the apJiellants, who had
been for a temporary period restrained from entering upon the same. The
application made by respondent No.4 under section 482 Cr.P.C. was thus
a gross abuse of the process of the Court. [396D-F]
D
2. By virtue of an interim order of this Court the appellants have
remained in possession of the house and they shall continue to do so until
respondent No.4 obtains a decree in his favour in the pending suit and
dispossesses the appellants in accordance with law. [396G]
E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 213-214 of 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.91 ap.d 3.9.91 of Patna,
High Court in Cr!. Misc. Jurisdiction Case No. 3064/91 (R) & Crl. Misc.
F No. 1263 of 1991.

S.N. Sinha for the Appellants

B.B. Singh and Ms. P. Khata (for Ms. Rani Jethmalani) for the
Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHARMA, CJ. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special
leave is granted.

H 2. The dispute in the case relates to a residential house which
•
RAVI RAMAN v. STATE OF BIHAR [SHARMA, CJ.] 395
admittedly belongs to the family of the appellants and was in possession of A
respondent No. 4 as a tenant. The appellants and their father filed a suit
for eviction impleading respondent No. 4 as a party, which was decreed.
In execution of the decree the appellants were put in physical possession
of the house with the aid of police force. The case of respondent No.4 is
that there was an agreement for sale of the property to him and in part B
performance thereof he continued in possession of the house and was,
therefore, not liable to be evicted. He has filed Title Suit No.27 of 1991 in
~- the Court of Munsif, Hazaribagh, on the basis of the alleged agreement
which is still pending. He continued to assert his possession of the house
and was not reconciled even after his dispossession with the aid of the
police force, and ultimately an incident took place on 15.9.1991 which is C
the subject matter of a pending criminal case. According to the appellants
respondent No. 4 opened fire in a bid to take over possession of the house
and a first information report was lodged with the police.

3. At this stage a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of D
Criminal Procedure was drawn up by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and
both the parties were restrained from entering upon the property. After
the matter was examined, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate decided the
proceeding on 11.10.1990 in favour of the appellants. Relying upon the fact
of delivery of possession of the property to the appellants in pursuance of
the Civil Court's decree and the other materials on the record, the Sub- E
Divisional Magistrate restrained the respondent No. 4 from entering upon
the property. Some further facts have been stated by the appellants in their
special leave petition in this regard, which do not appear to be relevant at
the present stage, and it is sufficient to mention that a criminal revision
petition by respondent No. 4 directed against the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate's Order was dismissed by the High Court. On 22.1.1991, that is, F
l!!Qre than three months after the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Order,
respondent No. 4 filed a fresh application before the same Sub-Divisional
Magistrate for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 Code of Criminal
Procedure, which was dismissed by a reasoned order, pointing out the
existence of eviction decree against the respondent No. 4 and the fact of G
• delivery of possession of the property to the appellants in execution there-
of. This order was not challenged and became final. It was only thereafter
that the Title Suit by respondent No. 4 was filed in Munsifs Court. On
23.4.1991, respondent No. 4 made an application under Section 482 Code
of Criminal Procedure before the High Court substantially for the same
relief which was claimed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He did not H
3% SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 1 S.C.R.
A set out complete facts in his application, High Court mainly relied upon
the fact of delivery of the movable articles found in the property by the
authority concerned to the parties in pursuance of the final direction issued
in the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and prayed for dispossession of the appellants from the house. The appel-
lants appeared before the High Court and placed full facts, but the High
B Court by the impugned judgment directed that the house shall be in
possession of the Officer-in-charge of the Mandu Police Station till the
disposal of the Title Suit. The appellants moved an application before the
High Court for recalling its judgment, which was heard by the Division
Bench and was dismissed.
c 4. According to the impugned order of the High Court, when on the
initiation of the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure both the parties had been restrained from entering upon the
property, it was not right for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to have allowed
the appellants later to take possession of the property. An examination of
D the impugned judgment will show that the High Court failed to appreciate
the crucial fact that .the appellants were not put in possession of the
property by Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the termination of the proceed-
ing under Section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure, but had obtained actual
physical possession thereof earlier in the execution of the eviction decree
E with police aid and the status quo was restored by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate while disposing of the proceeding under Section 144 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and dismissing the application of the respon-
dent No. 4 for starting a fresh proceeding under Section 145 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. On the finding arrived at by him, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate took the right step in restoring the possession of the property
p to the appellants, who had been for a temporary period restrained from
entering upon the same. The application made by respondent No. 4 under
Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure was thus a gross abuse
of the process of the.court, which the High Court failed to appreciate. We,
accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss
the application of respondent No. 4 made before the High Court. By virtue
G of an interim order of this Court the appellants have remained in posses-
sion of the house and they shall continue to do so until respondent No. 4
obtains a decree in his favour in the pending suit and dispossesses the
appellants in accordance with law.

G.N. Appeals allowed.