Necessity of receipt of payment under Section 447

Necessity of receipt of payment under Section 447 written by Diksha Sharma student of Government Law College, Mumbai

Jagdish Kapila vs Raj Kumar & Anr.

Facts:

Jagdish Kapila, an allottee of a shop from NDMC was charged under Section 447 for trespassing the premises, which was in current possession of the lessee namely Raj Kumar. The complainant framed charges against the petitioner for taking Rs. 50,000/- as rent without providing a receipt and alleged to have trespassed into the shop by breaking the locks. The petitioner sought relief, moving to the high court.

Issues:

• Whether the petitioner has committed criminal trespass?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 200, Indian Penal Code – Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false
• Section 441, Indian Penal Code – Criminal trespass
• Section 447, Indian Penal Code – Punishment for criminal trespass

Appellant’s Contention:

The petitioner submitted that the trial court was mistaken to not have recognized that he is the allottee and possessor of the property being dealt with herein. Also, there is no documentary evidence proving parting of possession by the petitioner to the respondent. He had also filed a complaint against four other shop keepers harassing him to part with the possession of his shop for which he had appealed for the imposition of an injunction.

Respondent’s Contention:

The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that he had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as an advance for rent and possession was handed over by the petitioner to him. Articles such as furniture and chair, belonging to the petitioner, continued to exist there despite a request of removal for the same. Post initiation of fixtures and fittings within the shop, the locks were broken and the petitioner had trespassed into the shop because of which he had filed a complaint under Section 200.

Observations of the court:

After observing the facts of the case, the court was of the view that there was no corroboration for the fact if any discussion took place between the parties regarding possession of the shop or even a receipt of payment of Rs. 50,000/-given as advance. Accordingly, the situation set out cannot be covered under the provision of Section 441, which defines committing an offense by a person on entering someone else’s property with malicious intent. Therefore, charging him under Section 447 would not maintainable and hence, charges filed against the petitioner are not sustainable.

Judgment:

The allegations and charges made against the petitioner are not maintainable, therefore, he is discharged of the same.