The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Shrivastava vs. State of U.P. and Haji Iqbal @ Bala Through S.P.O.A Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, as well as the parameters for quashing of an FIR in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant revisional application with a prayer for quashing of the proceedings in connection with G.R. Case no. 4447 of 2011 arising out of Berhampore Police Station case no. 991 of 2011 dated 04.09.2011 under Sections 341/506/427/354/45 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) pending before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate (for short J.M.), 3rd Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad.

2. Complainant / opposite party no. 2 herein submitted one application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CrPC) alleging, inter alia, that accused/petitioner herein is a tenant under the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and the complainant was to receive a due amount of Rs. 21,31,200/- as arrear rent for 37 months. Hereinafter the complainant/opposite party no. 2 received the information that the petitioner forcefully broke the boundary wall on the western side of the said plot and constructed a shutter in order to make obstruction. When the petitioner along with some associates confronted the opposite party no. 2, he was subjected to abusive language and physical harassment. The accused even assaulted the wife of the complainant with the intent to outrage her modesty and threatened the complainant and his associates with dire consequence of death. It has been further alleged that in the mean time, one of the associates of the petitioner snatched Rs. 5000/- out of the pocket of the opposite party no. 2 and fled. On 10.06.2011 the complainant informed the local Police Station about the whole incident but did not get any fruitful feedback. Afterwards on 13.06.2011 he informed the Superintendent of Police of Murshidabad about the same but still got not remedy. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the instant application and the Ld. Magistrate was pleased to accept the same and referred it to the Jurisdictional police Station to investigate the case.

3. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against five accused including the petitioner to face trial under Section 341/506/427/354/34 of IPC.

Argument advanced:-

4. Ld. Counsel Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee , appearing on behalf of the petitioner in course of argument, has submitted that there is landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and the instant proceeding was put into motion with a view to evict the petitioner from the tenanted premises. It is further contended that no such incident ever happened at the instance of the petitioner. Mr. Bhattacherjee further submitted that the provision of Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) was not complied with within the meaning of ratio handed down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Shrivastava vs. State of U.P. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287

5. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhattacherjee relied on the following case Haji Iqbal @ Bala Through S.P.O.A Vs. State of U.P. & Ors reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 946

6. Ld. Counsel Ms. Faria Hossain, appearing on behalf of the State has relied on the investigation particularly the evidence collected therein against the accused/petitioner and it is submitted that written complaint clearly suggests prima facie commission of offence required to be adjudicated at the time of trial not at the threshold.

Analysis:-

Factual aspects:-

7. It is not disputed that petitioner is a tenant under opposite party no. 2 herein in respect of a showroom named as Laxican Motor beside National Highway-34. It is alleged in the complaint that there was huge amount of arrear rent due to complainant. Therefore, relationship between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 cannot be said to be a pleasant one.

8. According to written complaint on 25.05.2011 at about 5 p.m. the opposite party no.2, after getting an information regarding installation of shutter on the western side wall of the said plot confronted the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner and his main assaulted the opposite party no. 2 and outraged the modesty of his wife and also snatched 5000/- rupees o