NANDA DULAL BAG Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application praying for direction upon the respondent authorities to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members from the illegal activities of the respondent no.7, for quashing of Jagaddal Police Case No. 393 dtd. 21/9/2023 under Ss. 341, 195A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and initiating disciplinary proceedings against the erring police personnel.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is the owner of the property in question. He lives there with his wife, his other son and his family. The respondent no.7 being the youngest son of the petitioner never stayed with the petitioner for the last 15 years. He had worked in Mumbai. It was only after the petitioner gifted away a considerable portion of his property to another son that the respondent no.7 has come to create disturbances. In fact on 19/9/2023, a case was started, inter alia, under the provisions of the POCSO Act against the other son of the petitioner for alleged misbehavior with the respondent no.7's minor daughter. Soon thereafter, the respondent no.7 lodged another case, inter alia, under Sec. 195A of the Penal Code for threatening witnesses. In this case, the daughter in law of the petitioner was made an accused. On a particular day, the respondent no.7 along with police personnel tried to break open the lock on the main door of the petitioner's building with a hammer. Surprisingly in connection with this case, the police registered a case under Sec. 195A of the Penal Code against the present petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent submits as follows. The allegations made in the writ petition are denied. The private respondent, his wife and minor daughter had been staying in the said house for quite some time. All their belongings including important documents are present inside the house. One day when the private respondent had gone out, the main door of the house was locked by the petitioner and his men. They were denied entry. The petitioner said that until the POCSO case was withdrawn, they would not be allowed to enter the house.