MANJU MOHANKA Vs. RENUKA BANERJEE
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The Revisional Application arises out of an order dated 16-7-1973 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 3rd Court, Alipore in Complaint Case No. C-1345 of 1987 under Section 500 and 500/120B, I.P.C.
(2.)The case of the petitioners in short is that petitioner No. 1 is a tenant under the husband of O.P. No. 1 in respect of a portion of premises No. 90/2, Block - 'G', New Alipore. She used to pay rent regularly but the husband of O.P. No. 1 refused to accept the same from the month of November, 1985. Thereafter, she started to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller. O.P. No. 1 and her husband began creating disturbances in order to forcefully evict the petitioners No. 1 from the said premises. Petitioner No. 1 in order to protect her interest had to start a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P.C. being M.P. Case No. 1325 of 1985. She also filed a Civil Suit being T.S. No. 522 of 1995. She got orders in her favour in both the proceedings, though the same are pending. She also filed the another Title Suit being T.S. No. 78 of 1986 against the O.P. No. 1 and her husband for declaration of her tenancy. That suit is also pending. As O.P. No. 1 filed a Criminal Case No. 290 of 1986 which was later sent to the Police Station and the G.R. Case arose. The O.P. No. 1 also filed a Criminal Case under Section 94, Cr. P.C., against the petitioners being M.P. Case No. 223 of 1986. The landlord also filed another Title Suit being 412 of 1987 for Permanent Injunction and an order of status quo was passed in that Suit. In view of the search warrant issued in M.P. Case No. 223 of 1986) Police seized certain articles from petitioners premises. However, the seized articles were later given to her on execution of a bond. The petitioner also had to start a proceeding for violation of order of the Civil Court against the O.P. Thereafter, O.P. No. 1 filed an application being complaint Case 1345 of 1987 under Section 500, I.P.C. against the petitioners and O.P. No. 2, which is pending. It has been alleged that in the proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P.C. false and frivolous allegations were made which wounded O.P. No. 1 causing him mental pain and agony and humiliation in the estimation of others. Petitioner No. 1 entered appearance in the Case No. 1345 of 1987 and filed an application under Section 205 Cr. P.C. and the said application was allowed but subsequently as because the petitioner was not physically phusically present on a particular day, compelling processes were issued against her. Direction was given to the petitioner to remain present physically. The order of the Judicial Magistrate directing her personal appearance has been criticised. It is also the petitioners case that the allegation contained in the application under Section 144, Cr. P.C. are not at all defamatory and there is no prima facie case of conspiracy also. Accordingly the petitioner have prayed for setting aside the relevant order dated 16-7-1993 as also for quashing the complaint Case No. 1345 of 1987.
(3.)The O.P. No. 1 in course of her affidavit in opposition have denied material allegations contended in the revisional application. She has asserted that defamatory allegations were contained in the proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P.C. and as such she had to file a case for defamation being 1345 of 1987. The impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate has been supported as correct since the petitioner did not appear instead of direction to that effect. Petitioner No. 2 also in course of affidavit in reply challenged the revisional application as not maintainable.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.