High Court Of Calcutta
Prasenjit Mandal, J.
Anjana Indra - Appellants
Vs
State Of West Bengal - Respondents
C.R. R. No. 600 of 2009 CRAN No.608 of 2010
Decided on: June 14, 2010
Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Civil Dispute Turning into Criminal Offence
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a complaint under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that the allegations were of a civil nature and did not constitute a criminal offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations, which involved the breaking down of a wall and installation of an iron gate, could give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings. The court concluded that there was no illegality in the magistrate taking cognizance of the offence.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the complaint constituted a civil dispute or a criminal offence, and whether the magistrate's cognizance of the offence was legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the actions described in the complaint, if proven, could give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and therefore, the magistrate's cognizance of the offence was not illegal.
Final Decision: The revisional application to quash the complaint was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
Prasenjit Mandal, J.
1. THIS application under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed praying for quashing the complaint being C.R. No.119 of 2005 dated 29.04.2005 under Sections 147/323/427/379/506/34 of the I.P.C. pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Third Court, Sadar Hooghly.
2. THE petitioners have come up with the said case stating, inter alia, that the petition of complaint does not lay down any cause of action but the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under above Sections though the allegations laid down in the petition of complaint are clearly of civil dispute, if any, at all and the alleged act does not become a criminal offence at all. he has also contended that the learned Magistrate committed illegality in taking cognizance of an offence and so the cognizance is bad in law. Having considered the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners and on perusal of the materials placed in support of the case, I find that the allegation of the complainant is that on 21.04.2005 he went outside his house to attend a marriage ceremony at Bongaon and then he returned therefrom on 24.04.2005. Taking opportunity of his absence from his house, the accused no.1 and his associates broke down the pucca wall situated on the western side of the house on 22.04.2005 and they installed an iron gate thereat. So, if there was any dispute it was nothing but a civil dispute. So, the prayer for quashing the proceeding. Upon due consideration of the materials placed before this Court, I find that at least the petitioner has been able to prove that the private opposite party broke down the wall situated on the western side of the house of the plaintiff and installed an iron gate. If it were a fact, it may not only give cause of action to file a civil suit for compensation and removal of the gates, at the same time, the said fact, prima facie, may become a criminal offence for causing damage to the property of the petitioner. So the same fact may act as a cause of action for lodging civil suit/proceedings and the criminal case too. So, I do not find any illegality in taking cognizance of the offence by the concerned Magistrate. Accordingly, this revisional application is without any substance. There is nothing to interfere.
3. THE revisional application, therefore, is dismissed. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.