Subsequent Purchaser Asking Tenant To Vacate Premises Before Initiating Eviction Proceedings Doesn’t Substantiate Case Of 'Criminal Intimidation': Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court clarified that a person who has purchased the property with tenants refusing to vacate will normally request the parties to vacate the premises before initiating proceedings for eviction and asking the tenants to do so will not substantiate the case of “criminal intimidation”.
The High Court was considering a revision application preferred by the applicant for quashing of the proceedings in a criminal case registered under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Single- Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) asserted, “From the materials in the case diary it appears that admittedly there was just one occasion when the petitioner/owner allegedly asked the complainant/tenant to leave the premises. It was after this “one” alleged threat of eviction, the present case has been initiated.”
Advocate Sukanta Chakraborty represented the Appellants while PP Debasish Roy represented the Respondents.
The dispute in this case was between the tenant and the petitioner who is the subsequent purchaser of the property, regarding vacating of the premise and the complainant prima facie apprehended forcible eviction. The Magistrate directed the enquiry officer to draw proceedings under Section 506 , which is a non-cognizable offence but the officer initiated an FIR and the same also ended in a charge-sheet.
In light of such facts, the Bench said, “This appears to be prima facie abuse of the process of law. But considering that charge-sheet has been submitted, it is now for this Court to see whether any prima facie case under Section 506 IPC has been made out against the petitioner herein”
On a perusal of the materials in the case diary, the Bench noted that there was just one occasion when the petitioner/owner allegedly asked the complainant/tenant to leave the premises. It was further noticed that all the witnesses are tenants under the petitioner and these witnesses have all stated that on only one occasion the petitioner “allegedly” came and asked them to vacate the premises within 15 days.
“A person who has purchased the property with tenants refusing to vacate will normally request the parties to vacate the premises before initiating proceedings for eviction. The ingredients required to substantiate the case of “criminal intimidation” is thus prima facie not made out against the petitioner and, as such, the proceeding is liable to be quashed”, the Bench held.
Thus, allowing the application, the Bench quashed the proceedings in the case pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Charge-sheet registered under Section 506.
Cause Title: Sudip Pal V. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (Case No. CRR 128 of 2023)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Sukanta Chakraborty, Anindya Halder
Respondents: PP Debasish Roy, Advocates Arijit Ganguly, Debjani Sahu
