DILIP KUMAR SAHA Vs. NANDALAL RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is at the instance of the accused persons for quashing the proceeding bearing no.C/23334/08 under Section 500/34 of the I.P.C. pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Seventh Court, Calcutta. The opposite party no.1 filed a petition of complaint under Section 500/34 of the I.P.C. before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. On receipt of the said petition of complaint, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and transferred the same to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Seventh Court, Calcutta under Section 192(1) of the Cr.P.C. Upon examination of the witnesses on S.A., the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons upon the accused persons under Sections 500/34 of the I.P.C. The accused persons appeared before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and they were released on bail on 20.02.2009. Thereafter they have preferred this application for quashing the proceeding stating, inter alia, that the petitioner nos.1 & 2 are the office bearers of the Kamalalaya Centre Private Limited and the petitioner no.3 is the administrative officer-incharge of the safety and security of the said Kamalalaya Centre. A meeting was held on 07.06.2008 by the Kolkata Police at Lalbazar and the petitioner no.3 was asked to attend the said meeting. Thereafter, a team consisting officials of police personnel as well as fire safety department of the State Government visited the said Kamalalaya Centre on 26.06.2008 and the said team expressed their objection and displeasure regarding the residential accommodation of the opposite party no.1 at the basement of the said building and the usage of cooking gas at the basement as well as the system of parking of outside cars within the parking and no-parking zone of the said Kamalalaya Centre. Thereafter, the commissioner of police asked the petitioner no.3 to take immediate steps against the aforesaid irregularities of the opposite party no.1. The owners of the said premises also expressed their opinions in writing against the illegal car parking and opined that no such car parking would be allowed.

(2.) In view of such decision, the petitioner no.3 issued letters upon the opposite party no.1 to stop the irregularities but the opposite party no.1 did not pay any heed. For that reason, one Title Suit No.1620 of 2000 was instituted by the opposite party no.1 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta and that suit is still pending. In that suit, the opposite party no.1 prayed for an order of injunction against the petitioners and the petitioners also filed an application for injunction against the opposite party no.1. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the entry of any outside car after 12 at night. The opposite party no.1 was restrained from allowing outside vehicle in the common passage and no parking zones in the day as well as in the night without using sticker which will be used from the competent authority of the petitioners of the Kamalalaya Centre. The 11th Annual General Meeting of the association was held on 20.06.2009 and the members of the association supported the stand and efforts of the petitioners with regard to the behaviour of the opposite party no.1. In the meantime, the said petition of complaint was filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the opposite party no.1 on 05.09.2009. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have come up with the present application.

(3.) In support of his contention Mr. Chakraborty has referred to the following decisions:-