Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nazmin Yeasmin & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 3697 of 2019
Nazmin Yeasmin & Ors.
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gobinda Chandra Baidya.
For the State : Ms. Rita Dutta.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : None.
Hearing Concluded on : 30.11.2023.
Judgment on : 08.12.2023
2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of Raidighi
Police Station Case No. 148 of 2018 dated 19.04.2018 under Sections
447/323/325/354B/427/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code (G.R. Case
No. 1060/2018) pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Diamond Harbour.
2. The petitioner's case is that the Opposite Party No. 2 is the brother-in-
law (Bhasur) of the Petitioner No. 1 and cousin brother of the Petitioner
No. 2 and nephew and neighbor of the other petitioners respectively.
3. That the husband of the Petitioner No 1 is an Assistant Professor of
RCCIIT College, Unit of Higher Education Society Govt. of West Bengal,
Kolkata and he namely Nijam Uddin Molla was the accused no. 2 in the
FIR and subsequently his name was not included in the Charge Sheet
being No. 151/18 dated 28.04.2017.
4. It is submitted by the petitioner that from the very beginning of his
student life, the Petitioner No. 1's husband, used to reside in Kolkata for
travelling convenience, and sometimes along with his family used to visit
his native village under Police Station Raidighi for the purpose of taking
care of his landed properties which he got by dint of inheritance and
purchase from the father of the Opposite Party No. 2 and also gifted
by the Opposite Party No. 2 vide Gift Deed No. 246/08 and other Deeds.
The total area of land measuring 3.16 Acres in general measurement
about 9.5 bighas owned by the husband of the petitioner No. 1 is
recorded in Mouza - Chaplar Khop Dag No. 2569, 2571 and 2542 total
land area 3.16 Acres, under Police Station - Raidighi, District - South 24
Parganas in the office of the B.L. & L.R.O. Raidighi. The record of rights
have been duly published and the petitioner no.1's husband is paying
the rents regularly to the respective authority in his name.
5. After being the absolute owner of the above referred land the husband of
the Petitioner No. 1 has been cultivating the same with the help of one of
his cousin brother namely Mahiruddin Molla, the Petitioner No. 2 herein
and by labours of the village and there was no dispute in any manner
whatsoever till the year 2015 between the petitioners and the Opposite
Party No. 2.
6. When the son of the Opposite Party No. 2 namely Mehebub Hossain
Molla became the local committee member of the ruling party, the
Opposite Party No. 2 along with his son and other local anti-social tried
to grab the property forcefully by cutting the paddy from the field,
catching the fish from pond and taking the fruits and vegetables. As the
husband of the Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No.1 used to reside in
Kolkata, the husband of the Petitioner No. 1 engaged his cousin brother
namely Mohiruddin Molla, the Petitioner no. 2 herein to take care of the
whole property.
7. On 16.04.2018 when the Petitioner No.1 reached the property along with
her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law and the Petitioner No. 3, who are
also the mother and sisters of the Opposite Party No. 2 (of whom the
Opposite Party No.2 never takes care) for the purpose of repairing the
mud house like previous years with help of labours, all on a sudden, the
Opposite Party No. 2 along with his wife and son rushed towards the
petitioner No. 1 and not only physically assaulted the Petitioner No. 1,
but also her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law and also the Petitioner No.
3. The Petitioner No. 1 then lodged a written complaint with Raidighi P.S.
which was registered as Raidighi P.S. Case No. 144/18 dated 16.04.2018
under Sections 341/323/325/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code being GR
Case no. 1042/18 pending before the learned ACJM, Diamond Harbour
for trial.
8. The allegations against the petitioners in the present Case filed by the
Opposite Party No. 2 is that on 16.04.2018 at about 1.00 P.M. all the
petitioners together tried to enter into the house of the Opposite Party
No. 2 and when the Opposite Party No. 2 protested, the petitioners
assaulted the Opposite Party No. 2 and his wife by disrobing her and also
snatched Rs. 20,000/-, and all the brass articles from the house of the
Opposite Party No. 2. They also blasted bombs and assaulted with a
pistol. As a result the Opposite Party No. 2 and his wife fainted and they
were rescued by the village people and were taken to Raidighi Police
Station and then admitted to hospital. The Opposite Party No.2 then on
19.04.2018 lodged a written complaint with Raidighi Police Station being
Raidighi Police Station Case No. 148 of 2018 dated 19.04.2018 under
Sections 447/323/325/354B/427/379/34 of Indian Penal Code against
the petitioners.
9. It is further stated that the Opposite Party has filed a Title Suit being No.
362/18 for declaration, partition and injunction against the husband of
the Petitioner No.1 in respect of the property as stated therein, though he
had already gifted the property to his brother Nijam Uddin Molla
(husband of petitioner no. 1) vide Deed No. 246/08. The said suit was
dismissed on 16.01.2019 on the ground of non prosecution. The
husband of the Petitioner No. 1 has also filed a Title Suit being T.S. No.
169/19 against the Opposite Party No. 2 and obtained an order of
injunction vide order dated 28.06.2019.
10. The petitioners state and submit that the entire alleged incident took
place on 16.04.2018 at about 1p.m., when the husband of Petitioner
No.1 was fully engaged in his college, and so all the allegations levelled
against petitioners are not only false but the same are baseless and
concocted and nothing but outcome of the complaint lodged by the
Petitioner No. 1.
11. In spite of due service, the Opposite Party No. 2 is not represented.
12. Admittedly the Petitioner No.1 filed a Complaint against the Opposite
Party No.2 and others, which was registered as Raidighi Police Station
Case No. 144/18 dated 16.04.2018 under Sections 34/323/325/354/34
of the Indian Penal Code which is three days prior to the case filed by
the Opposite Party No. 2 being Raidighi Police Station Case No. 148/18
dated 19.04.2018 Sections 447/323/325/354B/427/379/34 of the
Indian Penal Code (the present case), relating to the same incident.
13. Title Suit 362/2018 filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 has been dismissed
for non prosecution.
14. Title Suit 169/2019 filed by the Petitioner No. 1's husband against the
opposite Party No. 2 in respect of the same property is pending.
15. Learned counsel for the State has placed the Case Diary along with a
memo of Evidence.
16. Page 13 and 14 are the Injury Reports.
17. There is no Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. nor any other materials
on record to prima facie substantiate the charge under Section 354B of
IPC. But Charge Sheet has been filed for offence punishable under
Sections 447/323/325/354B/427/379/34 IPC. As such the said fact is
to be considered by the Trial Court.
18. Admittedly, there is a Case and a counter Case between the parties
relating to the same incident, though the present case has been filed
almost three days after the petitioner filed a case.
19. But as the materials in the case diary include injury reports, there is
a prima facie case against the petitioners to proceed towards trial.
20. Though the principal dispute between the parties relate to landed
property, the incident in the present case and the counter case are to be
adjudicated by the trial court there being a prima facie case against the
petitioners for the offences alleged and the case should be permitted to
proceed towards trial.
21. CRR 3697 of 2019 is thus dismissed.
22. Considering the fact that the parties are related to each other and
the dispute relates to their family property, the Learned Magistrate
shall refer the parties for mediation to the District Legal Services
Authority before proceeding with the trial.
23. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
24. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
25. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
26. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied
expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
