Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ratna Roychowdhury @ Ratna … vs The State Of West Bengal And Another on 6 August, 2025
2019:CHC-AS:2106
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
2
2019:CHC-AS:2106
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, 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
32019: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.
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
42019:CHC-AS:2106
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 suffering tremendously inasmuch as they do not
have any other alternate source of water.
2e. Though the case of the petitioners is entirely different
version, according to the Petitioners, allegation is baseless as the
eviction suit is pending since 1993 against the tenant. So, question of
forceful or illegal activities upon the tenant does not and cannot arise
5
2019:CHC-AS:2106
to evict. Since 1993 till 2001, there was no single allegation levelled
against the landlords with regard to forceful illegal activities.
However, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24
Parganas took cognizance and made over the case to the Court of the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas
for disposal. On 11.07.2001, the Learned Magistrate issued process
against the petitioners under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code.
2f. The petitioners voluntarily appeared before the Learned
Magistrate on 19.10.2001 and were enlarged on bail on the self-same
date. By an order dated 05.02.2002, the Learned Magistrate allowed
the prayer for dispensing with the personal appearance of the
petitioner no. 1. By the self-same order, the Learned Magistrate was
pleased to reject the prayer in terms of Section 205 of the CrPC made
by the petitioner no. 2, vide order dated 05.02.2002, the Learned
Magistrate fixed 15.05.2002 as the next date for recording of evidence
before charge. Ultimately, after conclusion of evidence before charge,
the Learned Magistrate framed charge under Section 430 of the IPC
on 10.12.2014 and fixed 04.02.2015 as the next date for recording of
evidence after charge.
2g. During the interregnum, in connection with the aforesaid
suit for eviction, the mother of the petitioner no. 2, namely, Smt.
6
2019:CHC-AS:2106
Anjali Roychowdhury filed an application before Ld. Trial Court
seeking for the local inspection of the said property. The Learned Trial
Court appointed an advocate as Commissioner for local inspection
and order for local inspection passed by Learned Trial Court was
assailed before this Hon’ble High Court by Jyoti Prakash Bagaria
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being C.O. No. 2289 of
2005. By an order dated 12.09.2005, this Hon’ble Court declined to
interfere with the said impugned order and directed the Learned Trial
Court to see that the Learned Commissioner submits a complete
report as expeditiously as possible and also directed the Learned Trial
Court to see that the suit for eviction is disposed of as expeditiously
as possible.
2h. There is no question of committing mischief from the side of
petitioners. Hence, this revisional application.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that the entire case is based on false, fabricated and
concocted stories. No such incident ever occurred in the tenanted
premises. False criminal case, on the guise of non-supply of water in
the premises, was initiated only to harass the landlords so that the
eviction suit may be withdrawn. The eviction suit is pending since
1993. So, question of any type of forceful or illegal activities against
7
2019:CHC-AS:2106
the tenant does not arise as the accused are the senior citizens. Now,
one of the accused expired during pendency of this case and
Petitioner No. 2 is more than 70 years.
3a. It was further submitted that the impugned proceeding was
initiated in the early part of 2001 and charge under Section 430 of
IPC was framed on 10.12.2014. Almost 13 years have been taken by
the Learned Trial Court to frame the charge without any sufficient
grounds. The right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is violated. Therefore, only on such score, the
proceeding may be quashed otherwise, the petitioner no. 2 being the
senior citizen now aged about more than 70 years will grossly suffer.
3b. Finally, it was also submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is
claiming himself as a constitute power of attorney holder but
complaint was lodged on his personal/individual name which is not
permissible in law.
4. On the other hand, opposite party no. 2 did not contest the
case despite service, he did not turn up on the date hearing. No
accommodation was prayed for. Accordingly, the matter has been
heard in his absence.
8
2019:CHC-AS:2106
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION OF THIS COURT:
5. Heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and upon careful perusal of the entire records,
this Court finds it is admitted fact that Mr. Jyoti Prakash Bagaria
was a tenant under the erstwhile owner, Dr. Amiya Kumar
Roychowdhury. Pursuant to a grant of probate, mother of the
petitioner no. 2 became the owner of the suit property. A civil suit
was/is pending.
6. Suddenly in the year 2001, complainant, claiming to be
Constitute Attorney of Jyoti Prakash Bagaria filed a complaint with
an allegation of stoppage of water supply in the tenanted premises on
05.06.2001 at about 7.00 am, the water supply to the first floor flat of
Mr. Bagaria suddenly stopped and thereby at about 9 am, Mr.
Bagaria along with his men attempted to go to the top floor of the
said property where the water reservoir was lying, the accused
persons intentionally did not allow them to go there and accused
persons confessed that they have stopped the water supply to the
first floor by using the stop cock. Not only that, the accused persons
also abused with abusive and obscene languages and threatened Mr.
Bagaria with dire consequences by saying that until and unless Mr.
9
2019:CHC-AS:2106
Bagaria would not vacate the flat, they shall continue such illegal
acts.
7. The Learned Trial Court examined witnesses, namely, Prabir
Ghosh, complainant as P.W. 1, Bapi Dhar, employee as P.W. 2 and
Tenant, Jyoti Prakash Bagaria as P.W. 3 and took evidence before
charge. This Court does not get confidence with the evidence of the
witnesses because none of witnesses stated, who stop the water
supply. Most of the witnesses narrated stop cock was under control
of landlord and they stopped the supply of water in the tenanted
premises. One of witnesses (P.W. 3) admitted that the water supply to
the whole premises is made from the overhead reservoir and pipeline
and a stop cock installed just beneath the reservoir. P.W. 1,
complainant stated that water reservoir at the 4 th floor roof and stop
cock is situated at the roof. The stop cock is under the total control
and supervision of the landlords. Another witness (P.W. 2) specifically
deposed that he knew Bhariwala (water supplier in bucket) Habul
Mahapatra, who used to supply water earlier and now. Tenants have
failed to lead normal lifestyle as earlier due to non-supply of water.
None of the witnesses stated whether the water supply was available
in the tenanted premises from date of inducting tenant or not.
Moreover, complainant admitted that there is only one main entrance
gate and only one stair case of the building which is being used by
10
2019:CHC-AS:2106
the accused as well as the tenant and his men, agents etc. so there is
no dispute about the access right up to the overhead reservoir. These
facts are not considered by the Learned Trial Court before issuing
summons against the accused. The Learned Trial Court must be
cautious and careful while issuing summons. As a matter of fact, the
eviction suit instituted by the erstwhile landowner against the tenant
is still pending, therefore, there is every chance to disturb owner by
filing false and frivolous allegations, which requires careful scrutiny.
8. Upon further perusal of evidence of witnesses, this Court
finds there are vital contradictions amongst the witnesses. There are
inconsistencies and vital dichotomies in written complaint and
evidence led before the Learned Trial Court are as follows:-
a) P.W. 1, in his deposition, stated that he went to the
second floor along with P.W. 3 and others, where the
accused persons were allegedly present. However, in
his earlier statement dated 13.05.2004, he claimed
that the water reservoir is situated at the fourth floor
and the stop cock at the roof, whereas in the same
statement, he also referred to a water connection
through the third-floor reservoir. Given that the
building is three-storied structure, these shifting and
112019:CHC-AS:2106
factually inconsistent versions materially impair the
credibility of the prosecution’s case.
b) P.W. 2 stated that he, along with P.W. 1, P.W. 3, and
one Mr. P. Mukherjee went to the accused persons’
premises and was directly confronted by them.
However, P.W. 3, in his deposition, dated 10.02.2010
gave a different version, stating that he went along
with his wife and initially met two servants of the
landlords, who allegedly admitted to stopping the water
supply. The written complaint again narrates a
different story.
c) While P.W. 3 attributes the act of stopping the water
supply to the landlords’ servants, those servants were
neither made accused. Whereas earlier versions
suggest direct involvement and admission by the
accused themselves, P.W. 3’s later version states that
the accused persons were not initially present and
were only approached later where the accused allegedly
admitted to and justified the disconnection directly.
12
2019:CHC-AS:2106
9. Apart from the aforesaid vital dichotomies, it took almost 13
years for framing of charge under Section 430 of the Indian Penal
Code against the petitioner. It indeed right of speedy trial guarantees
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Present
petitioner is more than 70 years. The opposite party no. 2 did not
prefer to contest the case despite good service. It clearly indicates he
is not interested in pursuing the case any further. This Court fully
satisfies that this case falls in the Category mentioned in Serial No. 3
of Paragraph No. 102 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal &
Ors.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the basic points for
consideration pursuant to which a complaint may be entertained in
accordance with law before a Court of law. The Hon’ble Court has laid
down as to when the extraordinary power of this Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be espoused.
Relevant portion thereof may beneficially be quoted herein below: –
“102. This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of
various relevant provisions of CrPC under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in
a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or the inherent powers under
1
AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604: 1992 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
132019:CHC-AS:2106
Section 482 CrPC gave the following categories of cases
by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus,
this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
14
2019:CHC-AS:2106
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
15
2019:CHC-AS:2106
10. In addition, complainant filed complaint in his own name
though he claims he is constitute attorney of Mr. Bagaria, is not
permissible in law.
11. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that there is a sufficient reason and merit to
quash the proceeding to prevent abuse of process of law and secure
the ends of justice.
12. Consequently, CRR No. 1387 of 2015 is, thus, allowed.
Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.
13. 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 is hereby
quashed and all orders passed therein are hereby set aside.
14. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Trial
Court for information.
15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
16
2019:CHC-AS:2106
16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
legal formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
(P.A.)