The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence and the jurisdiction of the Trial Court in determining the truthfulness, sufficiency, or admissibility of the evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. The proceeding in connection with G.R. Case no. 223 of 2020 corresponding to Bidhannagar (North) Police Station Case no. 50 of 2020 dated 19.03.2020 under Section 341/354C/506 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), pending before Learned Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar is challenged in this revision application with a prayer for setting aside of the order dated 29.08.2023 in connection with G.R. Case no. 223 of 2020 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar.

Brief Facts:-

2. A case was registered against the petitioner herein pursuant to a written complaint lodged by one Mamta Agarwal, the opposite party no. 2 herein alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/354C/506 of the IPC and such complaint was registered as First Information Report (FIR) on 19.03.2020 which was registered as Bidhannagar (North ) Police Station Case No. 50 of 2020 dated 19.03.2020 alleging inter alia that the complainant/ opposite party no. 2 herein is a tenant of Mr. Amalendu Biswas who is one of the owners of the property situated at CF-231,Sector I, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700064. The property is jointly owned by one Amalendu Biswas and Bimalendu Biswas. The said Bimalendu Biswas is the brother of said Amalendu Biswas and also the father of the petitioner. On 18.03.2020 the opposite party no. 2 along with her friend and some associates tried to enter the said house where she was restrained by the petitioner in aggressive mode and also threatened her associates and tried to intimidate the opposite party no. 2 by clicking her pictures and making videos of the opposite party no. 2 without her consent on his mobile phone. By doing so the petitioner allegedly intruded into the privacy of the complainant and outraged her modesty. Feeling threatened she lodged a written complaint mentioned hereinabove.

Argument:-

3. Learned Counsel, Mr. Somnath Ghoshal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 29.11.2018 passed by Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat, North 24 Paraganas in connection with Title Suit No. 20 of 2018 annexed here with as P-3 and submitted that father of the petitioner filed one suit for declaration and injunction in respect of a portion of the property wherefrom the father of the petitioner was forcefully dispossessed. In that Civil Suit on prayer of the plaintiff/father of the petitioner herein, obtained interim order of injunction passed by the Learned Judge:-

“ … Both the parties should maintain a join possession in the suit property. Both parties are hereby restrained from disturbing the joint possession of the other in the suit property and from alienating the suit property or creating third party interest in the suit party till disposal of the suit…”

4. Mr. Ghoshal has further submitted that Amalendu Biswas, a party to the civil suit, tried to create third party interest in violation of interim order of injunction passed in Title Suit no. 20 of 2018. According to Mr. Ghoshal the proceeding was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the father of the petitioner who is the plaintiff of the title suit being no. 20 of 2018.

5. Mr. Ghosal has further contended that the written complaint leading to the instant criminal proceeding does not disclose commission of any offence alleged in the case.

6. In opposition to that, Learned Counsel, Mr. Sudip Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the State has argued that there are sufficient materials in the written complaint to suggest for continuation of a proceeding under Sections 341/354C/506 of IPC.

Decision with reasons:-

7. Admittedly, there is a civil dispute between two brothers and the petitioner is the son of one. It is also found from the record that one interim order of injunction was promulgated by the Leaned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barasat directing both the parties to restrain from disturbing the joint possession of the other in the suit property and from