Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mohit Kumar Vs. State and ors.

Mohit Kumar vs State and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Delhi Decided Sep 30, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/704493

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl. M.(M) No. 973 of 2002
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - The petitioner is claiming ownership as well as possession over the said property being son of the deceased owner. 6. In the result, petition is allowed, FIR as well as proceedings arising there from are quashed firstly because the dispute being of civil nature, secondly for pendency of the civil suit in the C...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 145

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohit Kumar

Advocate Manish Vashisht and; Umesh Mishra, Advs.

Respondent

State and ors.

Advocate Pawan Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In
2003VIIIAD(Delhi)323; 108(2003)DLT584

Excerpt

- - the petitioner is claiming ownership as well as possession over the said property being son of the deceased owner. 6. in the result, petition is allowed, fir as well as proceedings arising there from are quashed firstly because the dispute being of civil nature, secondly for pendency of the civil suit in the civil court and thirdly because of the pendency of proceedings under section 145, cr......respondents/complainants are the nephews of the deceased owner. in the aforesaid civil suit the civil judge vide order dated 11.2.1999 has ordered that 'in the meantime the parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property and disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner'. 3. as is apparent there is a dispute with regard to the possession and title over the property in question. not only that the dispute as to possession has also landed in the court of the sdm by way of proceedings under section 145, cr.p.c. 4. aforesaid facts show that the dispute is mainly of civil nature. the grievance of the respondent that the proceedings before the sdm under section 145, cr.p.c. by way of which the possession of the parties shall be determined at the relevant time have been stayed because of the pendency of this petition. 5. since the matter can be settled only by the sdm with regard to the possessionas on relevant date through proceedings under section 145, cr.p.c. stay against proceedings under section 145, cr.p.c. before the sdm is hereby vacated so that the question of possession at the relevant time may be determined. 6. in the result, petition is allowed, fir as well as proceedings arising there from are quashed firstly because the dispute being of civil nature, secondly for pendency of the civil suit in the civil court and thirdly because of the pendency of proceedings under section 145, cr.p.c. before the sdm, the proceedings under section 145, cr.p.c. before the sdm are hereby vacated. the petitioners are discharged from the bail bonds. 7. parties are directed to appear before the sdm on 21st october, 2003 for further proceedings.

Full Judgment

ORDER

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. Instant FIR was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No. 2 that on 4.2.1999 the petitioner had forcibly entered into the premises referred as Flat No. 704, Survapriya Apartments, Survapriya Vihar, New Delhi and took over the possession.

2. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner has filed a civil suit against the complainant/informant No. 1 in respect of property in question. The petitioner is claiming ownership as well as possession over the said property being son of the deceased owner. The respondents/complainants are the nephews of the deceased owner. In the aforesaid civil suit the Civil Judge vide order dated 11.2.1999 has ordered that 'in the meantime the parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property and disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner'.

3. As is apparent there is a dispute with regard to the possession and title over the property in question. Not only that the dispute as to possession has also landed in the Court of the SDM by way of proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C.

4. Aforesaid facts show that the dispute is mainly of civil nature. The grievance of the respondent that the proceedings before the SDM under Section 145, Cr.P.C. by way of which the possession of the parties shall be determined at the relevant time have been stayed because of the pendency of this petition.

5. Since the matter can be settled only by the SDM with regard to the possessionas on relevant date through proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. Stay against proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. before the SDM is hereby vacated so that the question of possession at the relevant time may be determined.

6. In the result, petition is allowed, FIR as well as proceedings arising there from are quashed firstly because the dispute being of civil nature, secondly for pendency of the civil suit in the Civil Court and thirdly because of the pendency of proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. before the SDM, the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. before the SDM are hereby vacated. The petitioners are discharged from the bail bonds.

7. Parties are directed to appear before the SDM on 21st October, 2003 for further proceedings.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial