A party cannot be allowed to negotiate a parallel post facto criminal action on the self-same facts and documents after a civil action has been concluded.

Subrata Talukdar, J.

In this application the petitioner seeks quashing of the First Information Report being Bidhannagar East Police Station Case No.43 of 2014 dated 2nd April, 2014 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 of IPC presently pending before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short Ld. ACJM), Bidhannagar East, District- North 24 Parganas and corresponding to GR Case No. 304 of 2014.

Sri Sarajyati Dutta, Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is a senior citizen at present and a retired bank officer. The petitioner is the original lessee of the premises no. BL-79, Sector-II, Salt Lake City (for short the subject premises) under the jurisdiction of East Bidhannagar P.S. A tenancy agreement was executed on the 4th of August, 1991 by and between the parents of the OP2-complainant, and the petitioner in respect of the subject premises. On the 7th of January, 1993 the father of the OP2-complainant having expired the said tenancy agreement dated 4th August, 1991 got misplaced necessitating the execution of fresh agreement dated 1st October, 1995 by and between the petitioner and the mother of the OP2-complainant.

It has been, inter alia, alleged in the complaint that at paragraph 12 of the said agreement it has been fraudulently stated by tampering/adding/altering the following: “this is the last and final memorandum of agreement cancelling all other earlier agreements”. Therefore alleging fraud and forgery the OP2 filed the instant complaint.

Sri Dutta further submits that in the year 2004 the petitioner filed an eviction suit against the OP2-complainant along with other defendants which was decreed on 28th December, 2008 in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. Challenging the decree the OP2-complainant filed an appeal before the Ld. 1st Additional District Court, Barasat and on 12th November, 2009 the Ld. Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal on contest thereby affirming the decree. Further challenging the order of the Ld. Appellate Court the OP2 preferred a second appeal before this Hon’ble Court being SA 189 of 2010 and on 28th January, 2013 the second appeal was dismissed and no steps were taken to restore the same.

Ld. Counsel submits that towards execution of the decree, Title Execution Case No. 09 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner and the OP2 and his family members were evicted from the upper portion of the subject premises and vacant possession was delivered to the petitioner on 13th December, 2013. Thereafter it is alleged that the OP2 and his family members forcibly occupied the ground floor of the subject premises and till date are illegally staying there compelling the petitioner to lodge a complaint with Bidhannagar East Police Station being Complaint No. 146 of 2013 dated 14th December, 2013 under Section 448 of the IPC.

At the same time the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of khas possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Ld. Counsel strenuously argues that only to harass the petitioner and his family members the OP2-complainant having failed to succeed in all the abovenoted Civil Courts has filed the instant complaint by way of a counterblast. Admittedly, the second agreement dated 1st October, 1995 was signed by the mother of the OP2-complainant and no controversy with regard to any forgery was at all raised by the OP2-complainant for nearly 18 years that is, between 1995 and 2013. However, close to the success of the petitioner in his civil action the OP2-complainant has lodged one complaint after another against the petitioner.

Ld. Counsel refers to the first complaint being Bidhannagar East Police Station Case No. 187 of 2011 dated 5th December, 2011 under Sections 447/323/506 (II)/379 of the IPC and submits that on completion of investigation no material was found against the petitioner and the Investigating Officer filed a closure report with the further prayer to prosecute the OP2 and his wife under Section 211 IPC. Furthermore