- (1.) In this application challenge is thrown to the proceedings in G.R. Case no.6093 of 2010 presently pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Barrackpore in connection with Baranagar Police Station Case no.167 of 2010 dated 28/04/2010 under Sections 323/447/452/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code including the order dated 13th February, 2012 issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:- a) That the petitioner, who is engaged in the field of education, runs a kindergarten school for children under the name and style of 'Blossoms' in the city; b) The school is run by the petitioner on rent in the premises being P- 34, Bidhan Park, P.S.- Baranagar. The land lady of the said premises is the OP2 and the petitioner is therefore a tenant under OP2; c) That between the parties, i.e. petitioner and the OP2 an Agreement of Tenancy was signed dated 15th January 2007. Under the said agreement the entire ground floor of the said premises was let out to the petitioner for running the school at a monthly rental of Rs.4,500. The initial Tenancy Agreement was to continue for a period of three years, i.e. until 15th December, 2010. d) The petitioner complains of harassment by the OP2 and her husband in the enjoyment of his tenancy. According to the petitioner, the OP2 is now interested in handing over the vacant land of the said premises for developing and/or promoting purposes. The petitioner complains of further pressure from the OP2 and her men and agents to vacate the said premises compelling the petitioner to send a legal notice to the OP2 dated 25th March, 2008. The said legal notice was followed up by a general diary lodged at Baranagar P.S. being G.D. entry no.849/2010 dated 11th April, 2010. e) The petitioner has further pleaded that soon after lodging a general diary he was denied access to the school. The materials and other articles kept for the purpose of running the school were put under lock and key and the petitioner was repeatedly insulted by the OP2, her son and their men and agents. The petitioner did not get any assistance when he went to complain of the harassment faced by him at the local police station. The petitioner was then compelled to file an application under Section 144 CrPC before the Learned Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore being Misc. Case no.1273 of 2010. By order dated 12th April, 2010 the Learned Executive Magistrate was pleased to direct the Inspector, Baranagar P.S. to cause an enquiry and submit a report as well as to keep a strict vigil over the said premises to prevent untoward incidents. f) However, since the troubles of the petitioner did not abate even after taking all the steps by him as outlined above, he filed a Civil Suit being Title Suit no.156 of 2010 before the Learned 3rd Civil Court (Junior Division), Sealdah. On the 22nd of April, 2010 the Learned Civil Court was pleased to restrain the defendant (OP2) and her men and agents from ousting the petitioner (Plaintiff) from the said property without due process of law and further restrained the defendant from obstructing the access of the petitioner to and from the suit property. The interim order granted by the Learned 3rd Civil Court was extended from time to time. g) According to the petitioner, immediately following the grant of injunction on 22nd April, 2010 as aforesaid, the OP2 filed a complaint alleging untoward incidents committed by the petitioner on the 25th of April, 2010 i.e. three days after the order of injunction. The petitioner pleads that he was shocked to be implicated in a vexatious criminal case being G.R. Case no.6093 of 2010 pending before the Learned A.C.J.M, Barrackpore in connection with Baranagar P.S. Case no.167 of 2010 dated 20th April, 2010 under Sections 323/447/452/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC). The complaint, inter alia, alleges that the petitioner had completed three years of his tenancy in the said premises commencing 15th January, 2007. It further complains of the fact that although the Tenancy Agreement had expired, the petitioner was creating pressure on the complainant to allow him an extension of time to continue in the said premises and, although the complainant called upon the petitioner to sign a fresh Tenancy Agreement, he refused to do so. The complainant also alleges that the petitioner slapped her and threatened her when he alongwith his associates forcibly tried to enter the premises. h) The above mentioned facts and circumstances compelled the petitioner to file an application for Anticipatory Bail before this Hon'ble Court which was however, rejected vide order dated 11th June, 2010. On the platform of the said criminal complaint filed at the behest of the OP2 dated 26th July, 2010 under Sections 323/447/452/506/34, the Learned A.C.J.M. was pleased to take cognizance of the charge sheet vide order dated 13th August, 2010 and issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Sri Deep Chaim Kabir, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while filing the complaint the OP2 has suppressed all details of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 144 CrPC and the Civil Suit pending between the parties as well as the order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. Sri Kabir points out that the petitioner could not be considered to be a trespasser in the premises when he has a right to continue there under a valid Agreement of Tenancy.
(3.) According to him, the ingredients of the offences complained of are absent and the tenancy of the petitioner is recognized by the competent Civil Court.;