IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Monika Kalra – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
C.R.R. 269 of 2022
Decided On : 13-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. Petitioner herein being aggrieved by the proceeding in GR Case no. 1406 of 2018 presently pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate 7th Court, Howrah, has preferred the present Application contending that the charge levelled in the impugned charge sheet in connection with said proceeding are bereft of any material particulars and as such the same has not been substantiated against the petitioner, though she has been arraigned as an accused in the said proceeding.
2. One officer of Liluah Fire Station lodged a written complaint with the officer-in-charge of the Belur police station alleging interalia that on 14.03.2018 at about 12.00 noon a large section of people led by the petitioner herein, claiming herself, to be the daughter of the owner of the premises suddenly entered in the fire station premises forcefully by breaking the window, wall etc. and forcibly took fire station belongings including gears appliances computer and other valuable articles in two trucks bearing registration No.WB 61 A 2215 and WB 11 B 9928 with display board ‘ on court duty’ and ‘police’ respectively. Further allegation in the complaint is that on being initially restrained during vandalisation, the petitioner claimed that they are doing all these things as per the order of the court, and thereafter she pasted a hand written order on the wall of the fire Station. It is also alleged that on further scrutiny it revealed that the said trucks displaying ‘on court duty’ and ‘police’ were not arranged from the concerned department of the court but were being personally arranged. Thereafter, the fire Station officers sought for police help and then the local people and well wishers assembled and brought the Fire station belongings down from the trucks and station gradually normalized at 4.10 p.m. Accordingly, the complainant prayed for starting legal proceeding accordingly.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that several civil proceedings were continuing in between the father of the petitioner and the Fire services authority concerning land lord tenant dispute. Ultimately eviction decree was passed in favour of father of the petitioner/landlord against which First Appeal was preferred and thereafter second appeal also preferred before this High Court which was renumbered as SA 461 of 2008 and the said second appeal filed by the tenant /Fire service authority got dismissed. Thereafter, execution proceeding in accordance with law was proceeded by the father of the petitioner and by an order dated 15.02.2018 executing Court was pleased to direct the baliff to execute the decree and to take delivery of possession on 14.03.2018.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that petitioner’s father on 13.03.2018 filed an application under section 144 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate, Howrah praying for an order upon the opposite parties restraining them from illegally trespassing into the suit premises and further restraining them from making any obstruction at the time of taking possession of the schedule property by the bailiff. In compliance with the order dated 15.02.2018, the bailiff reached the suit premises on 14.03.2018 and informed the officials of the fire brigade present therein about the order of the ld. Court and requested them to remove their belongings from the suit premises and to hand over vacant possession but the employees present therein insisted that they would first speak to their higher authority and in a surreptitious manner, the employees started accumulating in groups in an around the premises..
5. Thereafter one of the employees requested the court bailiff to arrange for two trucks so that the belongings inside the suit property could be removed. Pursuant to that, the decree holder arranged two trucks. The employees started loading their articles on the trucks. When both the trucks finished loading and the bailiff about to leave the said premises, it was then when some local misc
Mukul Agarwal and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
The High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. if the FIR allegations disclose a cognizable offence, as the correctness of these allegations must be determined at t....
The court emphasized that allegations in an FIR must establish a prima facie case for prosecution, and mechanical charge-sheets without credible evidence can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.....
The power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the decision to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be predicated o....
Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on court.
Attempt to Murder - Court while hearing the matter under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at initial stage of trial, cannot examine and genuineness of the statement, allegation made in FIR.
The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding unless the allegations made in the FIR do not constitute ingredients of a ....
FIR not quashable where allegations of blocking judicial officer's residence and demanding bail prima facie show criminal trespass intent to intimidate; no mini-trial, accept FIR as true, especially ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.