JUDGMENT :

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved that the criminal proceedings initiated against him is manifestly attended with malafide, maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and private and personal grudge, which would be deprecatory in accordance with law. His prayer is for quashing of such a proceeding against him, which is now in motion.

2. The proceeding petitioner is mentioning about, is that in connection with Netaji Nagar Police Station Case No.19 of 2015 dated 16.01.2015 under Section 120B/448/354C/506 IPC. The corresponding pending case in the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, is ACGR No. 318 of 2015.

3. Said police case was started against the petitioner pursuant to the FIR dated 16.01.2015, filed by the present opposite party No.2.

4. Before dwelling upon the allegations made therein, one may first understand as to who the petitioner is. Record reveals that the petitioner is the employee of Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC Ltd.), working for gain in the said company, as “Assistant Manager-Recoveries”. He is duly appointed as the “authorised officers” as defined in Rule 2 (a) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Against this officer, allegations have been made of house trespass (Section 448 of IPC), voyeurism (Section 354C), criminal intimidation (Section 506 of IPC) and of criminal conspiracy, in furtherance of common intention with the others.

5. FIR dated 16.01.2015, may now be gone into, to find as to what are the allegations made.

6. Complainant/opposite party No.2 has stated herself to be the tenant of the ground floor flat (No. G-3) at the premises No. 20A/4, Baishnab Ghata Bye-Lane, Kolkata-700047, against a monthly rent of Rs.2100/-. She mentions, Mr. Subir Biswas of 22, Ramesh Mitra Road, Kolkata-700025, to be her landlord. She alleges that the petitioner and his men and agents initiated process for her eviction and dislodgement from her said tenanted premises, by exercising intimidation, violence and force. She has alleged that the petitioner has unduly, that is , in a manner as to come within the purview of section 354C , IPC, has clicked photographs of her at a time when she did not expectec him to watch her. According to the defacto-complainant, the petitioner had no authority under law to dislodge her from the said premises and/or vacate the flat and take her photograph. Allegedly, in his said endeavour, the petitioner has trespassed into her tenanted premises and in furtherance of common intention with others, conspired criminally and executed threat and intimidation. Defacto-complainant is apprehensive about being unlawfully and forcefully dislodged from her tenanted premises, which she has been lawfully occupying.

7. Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has stirred his arguments through various points, involving law and facts of the case. His first reference would be to a “loan agreement” dated 28.09.2004, annexed with the petition, to show that Mr. Subir Biswas, that is the landlord of the complainant is a borrower with the employer of the petitioner. He would further refer to the annexed “demand notice” under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, dated 16.09.2014 of the HDFC Ltd., to submit that said Mr. Subir Biswas is a defaulter of loan. From the said letter dated 16.09.2014 it transpires that the flat, said to be in occupation of the complainant/opposite party No.2 under a tenancy has been categorised as the “secured asset” in respect of which the company has created security interest.

8. Mr. Bhattacherjee has further referred to a letter of said Sri Subir Biswas dated 11.11.2014, which the writer has referred as his written ‘reply’ under Section 13 (3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to company’s ‘demand notice’ dated 16.09.2014, as mentioned above.

9. Mr. Bhattacherjee submits that notice of symbolic possession was published on 20.07.2012 in the well circ