LI Network
Published on: October 22, 2023 at 18:22 IST
The Supreme Court of India addressed a significant legal matter related to theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court’s ruling clarified that in cases where an injunction has been granted to preserve property, the removal of such property without the consent or knowledge of the other owner constitutes theft.
The Case Overview
The case in question revolved around the possession of a shop jointly held by the Appellant and the First Respondent. However, without informing the Appellant, the First Respondent handed over possession to a person who had purchased the shop from the landowner. This led the Appellant to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 457, 380, and 506 of the IPC.
The Appellant’s argument was based on the fact that an injunction had been granted to preserve the property. Therefore, the First Respondent’s actions, surrendering possession without informing the Appellant, were questionable. The Supreme Court observed that the First Respondent’s involvement in this matter could not be ruled out.
Legal Proceedings and Observations
During the legal proceedings, it was noted that the Appellant and the First Respondent were partners as Kartas of their respective Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) and operated a business as tenants in the shop. The First Respondent initiated the dissolution of the partnership without informing the Appellant and retained the keys to the shop, preventing the Appellant’s access.
In response, the Appellant issued a legal notice and applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), which led the District Court to direct that the shop should not be accessed by either party without the other’s presence.
The Court observed that the filing of an eviction suit against the First Respondent by a separate entity, M/s Sushma Constructions Pvt. Ltd., strongly suggested collusion. The First Respondent had not disclosed the injunction issued by the District Judge under Section 9 of the Act, which was crucial information.
Furthermore, despite being under an injunction to preserve the shop’s assets and belongings, the First Respondent surrendered possession and, along with co-accused, unlawfully removed assets by breaking locks, violating the injunction orders.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court held that the FIR had been registered for offenses under sections 457, 380, and 506 of the IPC. It concluded that the assets within the shop were jointly possessed by the Appellant and the First Respondent, and their removal without the Appellant’s knowledge amounted to theft.
The Court further noted that the High Court had erred in quashing the FIR. While the investigation and trial would determine the outcome, there was no legal basis for quashing the FIR. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment.
This judgment sets a precedent for cases involving the removal of property under an injunction, emphasizing the importance of respecting the legal process and property rights.
Case Title: Ruchir Rastogi v Pankaj Rastogi And Others