Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J. - (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. Learned lawyer for the petitioner has submitted that despite service of notice the opposite party No.1 is not contesting the application. The State of West Bengal, however, has left the matter at the discretion of the Court since it is a complaint case based on the materials at the disposal of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore. It is further contended by the learned Lawyer of the petitioners that in fact it is a civil dispute between the parties regarding inheritance of property and to put pressure upon the petitioners, they have been falsely implicated in this case. Having heard the learned Lawyer for both parties and on perusal of relevant records it appears to me that a civil suit being Title Suit No. 66 of 2006 is pending between the plaintiffs Smt. Anjana Karmakar and Smt. Anupama Roy as plaintiffs and Amrita Karmakar and Apurba Karmakar as defendants. The said suit relates to partition and for permanent injunction relating to premises No.84/1 Garfa Main Road and premises No. P/01 Garfa North Lake Road, Kolkata 700075. It also appears that another suit being No. 428 of 2005 is also pending between the aforesaid parties for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of holding No.P/01 Garfa North Lake Road, Kolkata 700075. Therefore, the allegation made in paragraph 8 of the petition of complaint should be meticulously scrutinized before holding any opinion as to whether the allegations are false and baseless and made with mala fide motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge for which such proceedings should be quashed. Learned lawyer has drawn my attention to the principle laid down in the case of Sunder Babu and Ors. Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2010)1 SCC (Cri) 1349 in support of such contention. But as regards the incident of assault narrated in paragraph 8 of the petition of complaint, I find that it is a pure disputed question of fact which the revisional Court can not decide with its limited jurisdiction and as such above principle is not applicable in this case.
(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. It is for the trial Court to take a decision in this respect after hearing both the parties. Therefore, I dispose of this revisional application directing the learned Court below to dispose of the aforesaid case within 3 months from the date of communication of the order without granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties and the points agitated before me by the contending parties are left open for consideration of the learned Trial Court in due course and in accordance with law.;