The court emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offense or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the proceeding of G.R. Case no. 2820 of 2021 corresponding to Siliguri Police Station Case no. 738 of 2021 dated 06.07.2021 under Sections 341/323/506/379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), pending before the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri.

Background:-

2. The petitioner was a tenant under Bikash Chanda @ Subal Chanda (since deceased), father of Sri. Subrata Chanda respondent no. 5 herein in respect of a shop room being Municipal Holding No. 341/465, under Ward No. 11 of Siliguri Municipal Corporation on payment of monthly rental of Rs. 500/-.

3. On 31.08.1995 said Bikash Chanda agree to sell the shop room of same measurement after constructing new building therein at a settled price of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand) per sq. ft. Petitioner paid Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) at the time of execution of the said agreement dated 31.08.1995. Subsequently, on 30.11.1995 petitioner again paid to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) but said Bikash Chanda failed and neglected either to construct the building or to execute the deed of sale in favour of the petitioner in terms of the said agreement dated 31.08.1995, though the petitioner was ready to pay the balance consideration.

4. Petitioner had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 25 of 2003 for specific performance of contract against said Bikash Chanda and his wife Hema Chanda. The said suit was compromised on the ground that a multi-storied building would be constructed and the petitioner shall get a room on payment of balance consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand).

5. On 03.08.2007 there was a tripartite agreement between petitioner, Bikahs Chanda @ Subal Chanda and his wife Hena Chanda and developer Dwarika Prasad Golan. Accordingly, structural construction was almost completed in terms of said agreement.

6. In the mean time, said developer Dwarika Prasad Golan died in the year 2016 and Bikash Chanda @ Subal Chanda also died. Petitioner demanded possession of the room from respondent no. 5 herein and his mother Hena Chanda but no result was yielded and the petitioner had to file a Case No. 91 of 2016 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Siliguri.

7. On 03.07.2021 respondent no. 5 and his mother made an attempt to disposses the petitioner from the said incomplete shop room and on being protested respondent no. 5 and his associates physically assaulted the petitioner by fists and blows. Then petitioner filed an application under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Ld. Special Executive Magistrate, Siliguri wherein direction was given to the inspector in-charge Siliguri police Station to maintain breach of peace.

8. On 12.07.2021 petitioner received one notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner met with the concerned Police Officer at Panitanki T.O.P, on 16.07.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner surrendered before the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and obtained bail in the case involved in this revision application.

Brief facts of the proceeding under challenged:-

9. On 06.07.2021 written complaint was lodged before the officer in-charge of Pani Tanki out post by the respondent no. 5 herein against the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the respondent no. 5 and his mother had to revoke the power of attorney given to the developer for promoting a building owned by the respondent no. 5 and his mother, due to death of the promoter, Sri. Dwarika Prasad Golan and the respondent no, 5 resumed construction work on the said land on and from 25.06.2021. But, suddenly the petitioner started creating disturbance and on 06.07.2021threatened the labors to stop construction work. Being informed respondent no. 5 interfered in the matter. Petitioner threatened him with dire consequences and assaulted him with fists and blow