ANUPAMA ROY Vs. MINU KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revisional application has been preferred Under Section 411/482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the complaint case No. 1282 of 2006 Under Section 323/352/34 I.P.C. now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6thCourt, Alipore, South24 Paraganas.

(2.) THE present three petitioners, namely, Anupama Roy, Dipankar Roy and Anjana Karmakar have contended that petitioner No. 1 is the daughter of one Abhoy Charan Karmakar, the petitioner No. 2 is her husband and the petitioner No.3 is also the daughter of late Abhoy Charan Karmakar. THE Opposite Party No.1 Minu Karmakar lodged a complaint against them on 30.03.2006 alleging , inter alia, that the complainant lived at premises No.P-01 Garfa North Lake Road under Kasba Police Station, Kolkata 700075 with her husband, one daughter and one son. THE said premises originally belonged to her mother-in-law who died and was survived by her two sons, namely, Amrita Karmakar i.e. the husband of the complainant, Apurba Karmakar and two daughters namely, Anjana Karmakar and Anupama Roy. THEre is a tenant on the ground floor of the premises and out of the three incomplete rooms one is in occupation of Anjana Karmakar, petitioner No.3 herein. It is alleged that on 24.03.2006 at about 2-30 p.m. all the accused persons entered into the premises, picked up quarrel with her and assaulted her with fists and blows for which she lodged the complaint. In paragraph 6 of the petition of complaint it is specifically alleged that all the accused persons have hatched up a conspiracy to drive the petitioners? family out of the said premises and they are attempting to grab the entire property.

(3.) I further conceive that allegations of assault on a particular date and time as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the complaint on the background of property dispute cannot be treated as a purely civil dispute beyond the ken of criminal jurisdiction. It is also a question of fact to be decided on trial as to whether the allegation of assault is frivolous and malicious on the background of two pending civil suits. I, therefore, hold that since disputed questions of fact are involved in this case it is for the learned Trial Court to take a decision in this respect after hearing both the parties.