The Calcutta High Court allowed the petition and quashed criminal proceedings filed against the petitioners on allegations of house trespass, criminal intimidation, and related offences.
The petition was filed by Ratan Kumar Roy and others, alleging wrongful criminal prosecution under Sections 406, 120B, 448, 379, and 511 IPC (later limited to Sections 448, 511, 506, and 34 IPC) for purportedly forcibly evicting the complainant from a rented property without legal authority. The petitioners contended that the allegations were fabricated and the dispute was essentially civil in nature over tenancy rights.
The complainant, a businessman, alleged that the petitioners forcibly changed locks, removed goods from a godown, and erected walls to prevent access, thereby illegally ousting him from rented premises. The petitioners countered that the complaint was an attempt to criminalize a civil landlord-tenant dispute and that the “godown” did not exist as alleged. Two widowed elderly women petitioners had lawful possession, and the complainant lacked tenancy documentation.
Petitioners argued that the case was a civil landlord-tenant matter with no criminal ingredient justifying prosecution.
The Bench comprising Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee scrutinized the investigation materials and witness statements, finding no direct evidence of the petitioners’ attempt to trespass or intimidate as required under IPC Sections 448, 506, or 511. The Court held that the facts and materials on record do not satisfy elements constituting house trespass or criminal intimidation. The dispute was determined to be of civil nature concerning tenancy and possession rights, properly within the jurisdiction of civil courts.
In result, the Court quashed criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, holding that allegations did not disclose offences punishable under IPC Sections 448, 506, or 511. The Court reaffirmed that disputes over tenancy and possession must be resolved through civil remedies and that unwarranted criminalization of such disputes would constitute abuse of process.
Case relied on:
1. Abhishek Saxena vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC online SC 1711
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dr. Achin Jana, Mr. Falguni Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh, Mr. Riya Ballav, Mr. B. Dali, Mr. J. Dhar, Mr. Chetna Rustagi, Advocates
For the State: Mr. Anand Kesari, Ms. S. Dutta, Advocates
For the Opposite Party/Respondent: Mr. Mukteswar Maity, Mr. Debesh Mishra, Mr. Manika Sarkar, Advocates
