S. Rangarajan, J.
(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Delhi (Shri Ramesh Chander) dated 24th October 1969, where by he took cognizance of the dispute between the petitioner and Smt. Chander K.anta Randev regarding a portion of property bearing No. J. 12/32, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, initiated under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . by the Punjabi Bagh Police.
(2) The petitioner (Shrimati Shakuntala Negi) is the owner of Bungalow No. J.I 2/32 who let out the front portion to Shrimati Chander Kanta for running a school called the Angels School. Since some disputes arose between the parties the tenant filed a suit against the owner for a mandatory injunction which was dismissed by the trial court on 19th February 1969 but, decreed in appeal, on 16th September 1969.
(3) On 24th October 1969 Shri Jagdish Pershad, husband of Shrimati Chanderkanta complained at the Punjabi Bagh Police Station that on the preceding night the landlady had, along with some persons criminally trespassed into the said portion in his wife's possession by breaking open the locks and after administering narcotic drugs to the school peon, his wife, etc. who were sleeping inside the premises and also removed some articles., etc. Shrimati Chander Kanta had been admitted as an in patient into a hospital even on 23rd October 1969. The police reported to the S. D. M. recommending action under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . and also laid a challan under sections 448 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The S. D. M. passed a preliminary order under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . and also ordered attachment; the details of how the attachment was effected may not detain us.
(4) It also stated that proceedings are pending against the petitioner for violation of the decree for mandatory injunction against her.
(5) The petitioner applied to the Court of Session to quash the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . and also to stay the proceedings. There was some delay in this revision petition being heard by the Sessions Judge on account of his being on leave. Shrimati Chanderkanta had filed a criminal revision petition (Cr. M. (m) 214/69) in this Court in this connection which was ultimately dismissed by Hardayal Hardy J. on 27th December 1969 on the ground of the criminal revision petition being withdrawn. The criminal revision petition pending before the Sessions Court was ordered to be disposed of urgently by some other Judge, since the concerned officer was on leave. The dismissal of the same has, however, no bearing on this petition.
(6) In view of what has now been laid down by the Supreme court in Bhutani v. Mani J. Desai : 1969CriLJ13 , noticed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner cannot ask this court to interfere wth the exercise by the S. D. M. of jurisdiction under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . His Lordship Mr. Justice Shelat pointed out that the satisfaction under sub-section (i) of section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . is that of the Magistrate. The Magistrate can arrive at his satisfaction both from the police report or other information. The High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, would not go into the question of sufficiency of material which has satisfied the Magistrate. It is not necessary that at the time of passing the final order the apprehension of breach of peace should continue to exist. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the dispossession is both forcible and wrongful and took place within the prescribed period the party dispossessed would be deemed to be in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order and the Magistrate can proceed to draw his final order directing the dispossessor to restore possession and prohibit him from interfering with that possession until evicted in due course of law.
(7) This has been stated to be the scope of Proceedings initiated under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code .
(8) In this case there was a police report on the 24th October 1969, concerning what happened on the previous night and the preliminary order itself was drawn up by the S. D. M. on the same day. In these circumstances there is no substance at all in the petitioner's complaint that since she was already in possession (having got into possession-according to her, on foot of voluntary and peaceful surrender) there could not be any further dispute about such possession. It is for the S. D. M. to be satisfied, in these proceedings, as Shelat J. pointed out (para 8), that such possession, as the petitioner in this case claims, was taken wrongly and forcibly. It is needless to cite the decisions of some High Courts relied upon on behalf of the petitioner for they were mostly prior to the said Supreme Court decision and the facts in all of them were different. The decision in Msnnadha v. Marappa Gaunder : AIR1969Mad411 cited on behalf of the petitioner is not of any assistance to her because that was a case where the Magistrate passed a preliminary order on the basis of a police report made long prior, without any further information.
(9) The petitioner, thereforee, cannot ask for quashing the preliminary order. The mere fact that under section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code the tenant may get back possession after the petitioner is convicted under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code does not affect the present position. If that happens earlier than the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . (which may not be likely) then there may be no need to pass another order under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . Even if the trespass is made out the conviction of the petitioner and her associates would depend on proof of the further ingredients required by section 448 Indian Penal Code; intention to intimidate, insult or annoy. The Supreme Court held in Rash Behari v. Fagu Shah : 1970CriLJ4 that though an intention to annoy has to be proved, the mere absence of the person concerned from the scene at the time of trespass, would not prevent an offence under section 441 of the Indian Penal Code being made out. This is, no-doubt, a different question. But reference was made on behalf of the petitioner to the absence of Shrimati Chander Kanta at the time of the alleged occurrence. This would have no bearing either on whether the offence under section 448 is made out or not, or even about the dispossession being forcible. If, as it is stated, the entry was effected by forcing upon locks that itself would make the entry forcible and unlawful. The proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . would have, thereforee, to go on even if the other ingredients of section 448 1. P. C. are not made out, in the said prosecution, against the petitioner and others. These considerations bear upon the second prayer of the petitioner that the proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be stayed pending disposal of the prosecution under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.
(10) A further argument was that on account of the pendency of the contempt proceedings (for violation of the mandatory injunction) the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code . be stayed. I consider this argument even feebler.
(11) I have, before I close, only to clarify that a specific portion of the premises is the subject matter of the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code .; it is not the entire house, including the portion not in dispute. I have considered it necessary to make this clarification because a ground (No. 2.) was raised by the petitioner in the grounds of revision to this Court that the whole premises is covered by the preliminary order.
(12) No interference is called for with the preliminary order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; nor can it be stayed.
(13) The revision petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.