IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. 1387 of 2015 Ratna Roychowdhury @ Ratna Raichaudhuri and Anr.

Versus The State of West Bengal and Another For the Petitioners : Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra, Adv.

Ms. Subhamita Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Kaustav Talukdar, Adv.

For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain, Adv.

Ms. Reta Dutta, Adv.

Heard on : 16.06.2025 Judgment on : 06.08.2025 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. Petitioners being the accused filed this Criminal Revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the proceeding being Case No. C/1156 of 2001, pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all orders passed therein. It is relevant to note that during pendency of this revisional application, Petitioner No.1 expired on 12.01.2021 as such, her case got abated.

2. The background facts of the case are essential for the purpose of proper and effective disposal of this case as under:

2a. The father of the petitioner no. 2 herein, namely, Dr. Amiya Kumar Roychowdhury was a medical practitioner and the owner of premises No. 169A, Shyama Prosad Mukherjee Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata – 26 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said property’). During his lifetime, he instituted a suit for eviction against a tenant, namely, Jyoti Prakash Bagaria (represented by opposite party no. 2 as his constituted attorney). The eviction suit was originally numbered as Title Suit No. 400 of 1993 and was subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 101 of 2004. The father of the petitioner no. 2 passed away around 1998. By virtue of the probated will, all the rights, title and interest in the said property devolved upon his wife, namely, Smt.

Anjali Roychowdhury, the mother of petitioner no. 2.

2b. At the time of induction as a tenant, the father of the petitioner no. 2 had made it clear that such tenancy was for the exclusively for the use of Jyoti Prakash Bagaria and his family members with a condition that as soon as the said Dr. Amiya Kumar Roychowdhury would require the tenanted portion, the said Jyoti Prakash Bagaria would be obliged to vacate the said premises. However, he did not comply with the same, as such, an eviction suit was initiated against him and the same is pending for disposal. This has resulted in longstanding dispute between the landlord and tenant.

2c. The opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint case with an allegation, inter alia, that the said property consists of a three storied building and Jyoti Prakash Bagaria was a tenant of the said property in respect of the entire first floor and one garage on the ground floor paying a monthly rent of Rs. 1100/- for the first floor and Rs. 100/- for the garage. It was claimed that he had been regularly paying rent. The property is said to have only one main entrance gate and only one common staircase which is being used by the accused persons as well as Jyoti Prakash Bagaria along with his men, agents and associates.

2d. The complainant further alleged that on 05.06.2001 at about 7.00 am, the water supply to the first floor flat occupied by Mr. Bagaria suddenly discontinued and thereby at about 9 am, Mr. Bagaria along with his men attempted to access the floor of the said property where the main water reservoir is located, the accused persons intentionally obstructed them from reaching there and accused persons confessed that they have stopped the water supply to the first floor by operating the stop cock. Not only that, the accused persons also used abusive and obscene languages and threatened Mr. Bagaria with dire consequences by saying that until and unless Mr. Bagaria would not vacate the flat, they shall continue with their unlawful acts. Due to the aforesaid forceful and illegal activities on the part of the accused persons, Mr. Bagaria and his family has been suf