Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
Pradeep Kundalia and Others – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another - Respondent
C.R.R. 2031 of 2018
Decided On : 07-05-2024
Quashing - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 448, 188, 34 - The court quashed the charge sheet against the petitioners, emphasizing the executor's lawful entry into the property under probate obligations, dismissing allegations of criminal trespass.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a charge sheet for allegedly trespassing into a deceased's property, claiming lawful access as the executor of the deceased's will, which had been probated prior to the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioners' claims credible, noting the probate granted to the petitioner as executor and the lawful nature of their actions, leading to the conclusion that the charge sheet was unwarranted.
Issues: Whether the petitioners committed criminal trespass under the IPC when entering the deceased's property as the executor of a probated will.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that lawful access to property by an executor under a probated will does not constitute criminal trespass, thus invalidating the charge sheet.
Result: The charge sheet and all proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. This instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the Charge Sheet being Charge Sheet No. 13/18 dated 27th February, 2018 in connection with Ballygunge Police Station FIR No. 139 dated 11th October, 2017 under Sections 448/188/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.
2. The factual matrix of the instant case is that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged a written complaint on 11th October, 2017 with the Officer-in-Charge, Ballygunge Police Station alleging therein that the opposite party no. 2 is a resident of 13/1, Chakraberia Road, North (now known as Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya Sarani), P.S. Ballygunge, Kolkata – 700 020 which is an undivided property of the father of the opposite party no. 2 and her aunt.
2a. One Subhas Maitra was a bachelor and used to live alone in the first floor of the said premises. On 25th April, 2015, he was found lying unconscious by the opposite party no. 2, who took the assistance of the local police to force open the main door of his flat. The police removed the said Subhas Maitra to SSKM Hospital where he was declared dead. The Police put a padlock in his flat to restrict access of individuals to such flat.
2b. It is alleged that on 11th October, 2017, the petitioner no. 1 with his associates broke open the said padlock despite protest being made by the opposite party no. 2 who also informed the petitioners that the flat had been locked by the police and keys were under the custody of the police. In return, the petitioner no. 1 informed the opposite party no. 2 that the police authorities themselves handed over the keys to him. As such, opposite party no. 2 called the local police who intervened in the matter and removed the petitioners from the flat and put a fresh padlock at the door of the said flat and an FIR was lodged at the instance of the opposite party no. 2. The same was registered as Ballygunge Police Station FIR No. 139 dated 11th October, 2017 against all the three petitioners including the petitioner no. 1 under Sections 448/188/34 of the IPC and subsequently, a purported Charge Sheet No. 13/18 dated 27th February, 2018 under Sections 448/188/34 of the IPC has been submitted against the present petitioners contending therein that on 11.10.2017 at about 12.30 hrs., the present petitioners in furtherance of their committing intentionally criminally trespassed into the flat of deceased Subhas Maitra situated on the 1st Floor of 13/1, Chakraberia Road, (North) Kolkata-700 020 by breaking open the padlock. Actually, the said deceased Subhas Maitra was a bachelor and he had inherited the said property being the eastern portion of premises No. 13/1, Chakraberia Road (North), Kolkata – 700 020 comprising of two flats, one in the mezzanine floor and the other on the first floor measuring more or less 1040 square feet from his mother, Gouri Devi (since deceased). The said Subhas Maitra had no kith and kin and/or legal heirs etc. upon whom the said property could have devolved by operation of law under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in case of intestacy. Prior to the death of Subhas Maitra, he made publish of his last will and testament on 27th June, 2013 in English language and character. By the said will, the deceased appointed the petitioner no. 1 as his sole executor. The execution of the said will was witnessed by one Mr. Prakash Chand Jain and one Mr. Vinod Roy. After his death, the petitioner no. 1 filed a probate petition being PLA 293/2016 in the Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court praying for reliefs as prayed for in the said petition.
2c. The said last will and testament of the said deceased Subhas Maitra was probated on 1st September, 2017 in favour of the petitioner no. 1/executor vide PLA No. 293/2016. In view of the said probate, the petitioner no. 1
The main legal point established is that a bona fide claim of right or title can protect a person from being convicted of criminal trespass, even if the claim is ill-founded in law.
A revisional application must comply with procedural requirements; failure to do so results in dismissal without consideration of merits.
Criminal proceedings cannot supersede pending civil matters; ongoing civil disputes should not be criminalized unless substantial evidence exists.
Legal heirs must comply with procedural requirements for substitution in criminal proceedings following the death of the original complainant.
A second revision petition is not maintainable under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.; mere allegations without sufficient evidence do not justify charges under IPC Sections 406 and 498A.
The need for a responsible invocation of the power u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the mandatory nature of Section 154(1) of the Code for registration of FIRs.
Filing simultaneous revisions in different courts on the same matter violates Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and constitutes misuse of legal process.
The primary legal principle established is that the framing of charges requires only a prima facie case to be established, and the court should not delve into the merits of the evidence at this stage....
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
