Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Sankha Ghosh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
CRR No. 398 of 2019, CRAN No. 1 of 2020 (Old No. CRAN 1336 of 2020)
Decided On : 16-01-2024
Uluberia P.S. Case - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Sections 188/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - 341, 339, 506 - The court discussed the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 341, 339, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and highlighted the civil nature of the property dispute. The court referred to various precedents discouraging criminal proceedings initiated to harass the other party and emphasized the need to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The judgment also cited specific cases and legal principles to support the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, co-owners of ancestral property, were accused of encroachment and criminal intimidation during a repairing job. The dispute was related to a civil case pending before the District Judge's Court regarding the title of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was purely civil in nature and lacked prima facie evidence to substantiate the criminal allegations. It emphasized the need to prevent abuse of the court process and referred to various precedents discouraging criminal proceedings initiated to harass the other party.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged encroachment and criminal intimidation during a property dispute, the civil nature of the dispute, and the abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of prima facie evidence for the criminal allegations, the civil nature of the property dispute, and the need to prevent abuse of the court process, as supported by various legal precedents and principles.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision and quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 188/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in respect of the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of Uluberia P.S. Case No. 06 of 2019 dated 04.01.2019 under Sections 188/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. During pendency of this case the Petitioner No. 3 Timir Baran Ghosh has expired.
3. The petitioner’s case is that they are in possession of their ancestral home situated at Village and P.O. Banitala, P.S. Uluberia, District Howrah-711316.
4. The petitioners further state that they are presently the co-owners of 40 satak of the said Baastu land along with other legal heirs of Late Dasarathi Ghosh and had undertaken repairing jobs at the said property of their portion as the same was in a dilapidated state and required urgent repairing.
5. During the said repairing job, the opposite party no. 2 obstructed the repairing job and falsely alleged that the repairing job is being carried out in her portion and that the petitioners are encroaching upon her properties.
6. The petitioners having faced such difficulty informed the local Police Station, being Uluberia Police Station and appraised the Police Authorities of the actual state of affairs. The complaint, so preferred by the petitioner no. 1 was registered as Uluberia P.S. Case GDE No. 2286 dated 25.11.2018.
7. Subsequently the petitioners came to know that the Opposite Party No. 2 has also filed one complaint before the Uluberia Police Station being FIR No. 06 of 2019 at Uluberia Police Station under Sections 188/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
8. The petitioners state that the actual state of affairs is that a civil case being Title Appeal No. 170 of 2012 is pending before the Learned District Judge’s Court at Howrah regarding the title of the opposite party no. 2 in the said disputed property.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that in no manner have the petitioners encroached over the alleged property of the opposite party no. 2 and have consciously confined themselves only towards repairing of the damaged portion of their undisputed part of the property.
10. It is further submitted by the petitioner that a partition suit being Title Suit No. 331 of 2018 is also pending, in which the petitioner and his mother and sister have added themselves as parties.
11. In spite of due service there is no representation on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/complainant.
12. The State has submitted that the case has ended in a charge-sheet.
13. The petitioner has filed copies of relevant deeds in respect of the said properties, in support of his case.
14. The present case has ended in a Charge Sheet under Sections 341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. The copy of the Charge Sheet along with other documents has been filed by the petitioner by way of a supplementary affidavit.
15. From the written complaint filed in this case, it appears that as there was a property dispute between the parties, the opposite party no. 2/complainant herein filed a Title Suit being No. 331 of 2018 before the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at Uluberia, wherein she got an order of injunction. Subsequently, due to the alleged disobedience by the petitioners of the order of injunction, she got an order directing police to ensure implementation of the order of status-quo (injunction).
16. Now the case, against the petitioner is that in spite of such orders by the Civil Court, the petitioners are allegedly forcibly constructing their house and on raising objection, the petitioners allegedly gave threats to her life.
17. Hence the complaint in the present case.
18. Section 341 IPC, lays down:
Ingredients of offence - The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 341 are as follows:
(1) Accused obstructed a person.
(2) He did it voluntarily.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to prevent abuse of the court process and discourage criminal proceedings initiated to harass the other party, especially in cases invo....
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes; a prima facie case must exist to avoid abuse of legal processes.
A criminal complaint based on essentially civil disputes, particularly where no prima facie case exists, can be quashed to prevent abuse of legal processes.
While considering discharge application, Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not – In such proceedings, Court is not to hold mini trial b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of criminal proceedings in a civil dispute and the requirement to consider whether a prima facie case is made out and whether the proceed....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations in a family property dispute lacked prima facie evidence of the accused committing the alleged offences, and the Magistrate's non-....
The absence of prima facie evidence in criminal allegations justifies quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
