Shri.Chitta Ranjan Mondal v. The State And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/31/2025 Shri Chitta Ranjan Mondal Vs The State and Another Ms. G. Mini ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar Mr. S. C. Mishra ... for the State Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the respondent No. 2 September 04, 2025 [AKB] Item No.6 The petitioner by way of the present revision petition, is assailing the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Port Blair in CR Case No. 62 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge was rejected.

Respondent No.

(De-facto complainant) filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the petitioner, along with two other persons committed offenses punishable under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506, 352 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case of the de-facto complainant is that she was residing with her mother-in-law and son at the house constructed on land survey No. 257, Rabindra Nagar village, Little Andaman. However, for the purpose of her son's education and for availing medical treatment for her mother-inlaw, she temporarily was residing at a rented accommodation at

Pahargaon village, Port Blair, South Andaman. On 05.04.2023, a fire broke out at her house at Rabindra Nagar destroying all her belongings and rendering the residential structure inhabitable. Consequently, she decided to reside temporarily on their own land measuring 100 Sq.mtrs. at Survey No. 203, Rabindra Nagar village. On 15.04.2023, when the complainant, along with her mother-in-law and son proceeded to the said temporary accommodation, they found that the accused persons, including the present petitioner wherein unauthorized occupation of the same. The said land originally belongs to complainant's father-in-law, and the temporary structure was constructed by him during his lifetime. Hence, according to the complainant, she and her family members were lawful owner of the premises-in-question.

When she and her family members asked the accused persons to vacate the premises, the later allegedly abused and assaulted them, thereby committing the aforementioned offences, since the police refused to register her complaint, the de-facto complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Trial Court. Vide order dated 09.08.2023, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Port Blair took cognizance of the offence and issued summons against the accused persons. The accused persons thereafter filed an application under Section 245 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure seeking discharge. Vide the impugned order dated 09.06.2025, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application.

petitioner/accused No. 1 has preferred the present revision application.

The case of the petitioner/accused No.1 is that they are tenants in the premises-in-question under one Shri Bidhan Chandra Poddar who is the landlord. The petitioner submits that complainant's father-in-law, Late Shri Karuppaiah, had agreed to sell the property to Shri Bidhan Chandra Poddar but expired before the transaction could be completed. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Late Shri Karuppaiah, including the complainant and her mother-in-law, refused to transfer the property, leading to Shri Bidhan Chandra Poddar to institute a Civil Suit against them. The learned Civil Court has also passed a restraining order against the complainant and her family members. Despite this, the complainant and her family allegedly attempted to forcibly enter the petitioners' tenanted premises and to evict them.

The petitioner claims to have lodged a complaint before the concerned Police Station on 15.04.2023 regarding the said incident. It is the contention of the petitioner that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, and the initiation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of law. On this ground, the petitioner prays for setting aside of the impugned order.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 states that the present proceedings are independent proceedings and are not related to the civil disputes between the parties. He states that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the learned Court.

This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the parties and has perused the record and documents placed on file.

It is not in dispute that a civil dispute is already pending between Shri Bidhan Chandra Poddar and the legal heirs of Late Shri Karuppaiah with respect to ownership and possession of the property-in-question. The petitioner claims tenancy rights under Shri Poddar, while the complainant asserts that the property was owned and occupied by her in laws. Undoubtedly, the question of title and lawful possession is a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Court, and such issue is not to be adjudicated in criminal proceedings. However, merely pendency of a Civil Suit or existence of a rival claim over property does not, by itself, preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings if their allegations disclose commission of cognizable offence. The scope of the present proceedings is limited to examining whether the prima facie material exists to proceed against the accused in respect of the alleged incident dated 15.04.2023.

It is an admitted fact that an altercation took place between the parties on the said date. Both sides approached the police with their respective version of the incident, and subsequently the complainant availed of her statutory remedy under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Trial Court, after considering the materials placed on record, formed an opinion that there were sufficient grounds to

proceed against the accused persons and accordingly issued summons.

At this stage, this Court is not expected to meticulously examine the veracity of the allegation or to waive the sufficiency of evidence, but only to see whether the complainant, on the face of it, discloses ingredients of the alleged offenses. The plea of the petitioner that the matter is purely civil in nature is devoid of merit. Even if there is a civil dispute, allegations of criminal trespass, assault, intimidation and outraging of modesty are matters that fall within the realm of criminal law. It is settled position of law that civil and criminal proceedings can run concurrently if the facts give rise to both civil liability and criminal culpability. Thus, the pendency of a civil suit or order of restrain in civil proceedings does not by itself extinguish criminal liability, if otherwise made out.

At this preliminary stage it cannot be held that the allegations are inherently improbable or manifestly absurd so as to warrant discharge under Section 245 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has rightly declined to discharge the petitioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion in accordance with settled principles of law and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and does not find any reason to substitute its own view in the absence of any manifest error in the impugned order.

Accordingly, the revision petition is found to be devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.)