SIKHA DAS Vs. NITAI CHANDRA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred this revision under section 401 read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing the proceeding of Case No. C 165 of 2013 pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate 20th Court, Calcutta. The backdrop of the present revisional case is as follows:

(2.) On February 21, 2013, the opposite party No. 1 filed a petition of complaint against the petitioners and one Anil Kumar Das since deceased before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, on the allegation of committing offence under section 500/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the said petition of complaint disclose that the petitioner No. 2, and 3 pursuaded the petitioner No. 1 to make false, frivolous and concocted allegation against the opposite party No. 1 by filing the criminal case. It is stated in the said petition of complaint that the opposite party No. 1 has purchased 1/4th share of the premises in which the petitioners have been residing as co-sharers of the joint property. It is further stated in the said petition of complaint that the Civil Court has passed an interim order restraining the petitioners from interfering with the ingress and egress of the opposite party No. 1 in the said premises where the opposite party No. 1 is running his sweet meat shop. The interim order passed by the Civil Court is not produced before this Court at the time of hearing of the revision. The opposite party No. 1, has given a different version of the incident which took place in the said premises on June 6, 2011. The contents of the petition of complaint further disclose that the allegation made by the petitioner No. 1 to the effect that she was physically assaulted by the opposite party No. 1 and his associates is absolutely false, reckless and defamatory. It is alleged in the petition of complaint that on June 7, 2011 the petitioner No. 2, being the husband of the petitioner No. 1 filed an affidavit before the Court of learned Magistrate to the effect that the dispute is settled by way of compromise. It is also alleged that on June 8, 2011, the petitioner No. 1 gave one statement before the police to the effect that the dispute is settled between the parties and that the petitioner No. 1 has no grievance against the opposite party No. 1 and she gave birth to a baby in R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. The contents of petition of complaint also disclose that on June 11, 2011, the opposite party No. 1 was released on interim bail and on July 20, 2011 the said interim bail was confirmed by the Court of learned Magistrate. According to the opposite party No. 1, the allegations made by the petitioner No. 1 with regard to the incident on June 6, 2011 are false, frivolous and baseless and the subsequent action taken at the instance of the petitioners has lowered down the reputation of the opposite party No. 1 in the eye of public. Accordingly, opposite party No. 1 has prayed for issuance process against the petitioners for the offence under sections 500/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The learned Magistrate examined the opposite party No. 1 and his witnesses and issued process against the petitioners for the offence under sections 500/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners appeared before the Court of learned Magistrate on March 25, 2014. The plea of the petitioners was recorded by learned Magistrate. It appears from record that the evidence in chief of the opposite party No. 1 has not been completed, but several documents have been admitted into evidence and marked exhibits by the trial court.