Ratna Roychowdhury @ Ratna … vs The State Of West Bengal And Another on 6 August, 2025

0
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, 2 nd 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

2019:CHC-AS:2106

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.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here