Threatening Tenant With Eviction Does Not Amount To Criminal Intimidation U/S 506 IPC: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that even in cases where the tenant alleges that the landlord had threatened him with unlawful eviction, the same cannot amount to the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Justice Dr Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: "Even if for the sake of argument if it is taken to be true that the petitioners have threatened the complaint to evict him from the alleged tenanted portion without taking due course of law that does not amount to criminal intimidation to attract section 506 of IPC. The dispute between the parties appears to be purely Civil dispute between the landlord and the tenant and obviously their remedy lies before the Civil Court and it appears that there are sufficient reason to believe that complainant has made an attempt to criminalize civil dispute."The allegation in the complaint is that the opposite party no. 2/complainant is a businessman carrying on his business in a rented accommodation at 54 Raja S. C. Mallik Road. After the demise of the original landlord, nobody agreed to issue a rent receipt to the complainant. Opposite party no. 2 then started depositing rent before the rent controller.Thereafter, the petitioner, along with unknown persons, threatened to oust him from the Suit premises without taking the due course of law.On 6th March, 2012 when the opposite party went to the business place for opening the shop, he found another padlock on the door of the godown and he also found that after breaking the back side wall, all articles/goods were removed from the godown by the petitioner and they constructed another wall in the back portion of the door. As a result, the opposite party is not in a position to enter into the godown.It is further alleged that the opposite party no. 2 is a bona fide tenant in respect of the said premises but without due process of law, the petitioners are trying to evict him forcibly. The petitioners had been booked under Sections 448/511/506/34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the proceedings, advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that before the present proceeding, a proceeding under Section 144(2) was started on 26.12.2011 by the petitioner wherein the police had submitted a report disclosing that when they went to the alleged disputed godown for investigation, they found that there exists no godown and only the dwelling house of the complainant is there.It was further reported that the complainant was trying to grab the property from the two widowed women by filing fictitious litigation.He further submitted that it is evident that the story of the opposite party no. 2 is improbable and absurd, and no man of ordinary prudence would act on the same. In fact, it was stated that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 are two aged widows and are suffering from different ailments and the opposite party no. 2 in order to grab the said property, illegally, tried to make an entry in the said premises.Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that during the investigation, the prosecution had seized the rent receipts and also the up-to-date challan in support of the tenancy agreement.He further submitted that from the letter dated 20th April, 1996, it also appears that there exists a landlord-tenancy relationship between the parties, and the petitioner has made an attempt to illegally trespass in the tenanted property.Court noted that in the present case, the allegations as revealed in the FIR reflect that the petitioners have attempted to trespass on the property in possession of the de facto complainant. It was held that in order to constitute the offence of attempt to house trespass, it must be shown that the petitioners made any attempt to commit house trespass or that they made such attempt unlawfully with the intention to commit an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant who was/is allegedly in possession. It was stated that the materials found during the investigation did not reveal the aforesaid and that even if the petitioners had threatened the opposite party with eviction, the same could not be grounds for criminal intimidation.Accordingly, the court quashed the case.Case: Ratan Kumar Roy @ Ratan Kr. Roy VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Case No: CRR 4258 of 2017Click here to read order

Threatening Tenant With Eviction Does Not Amount To Criminal Intimidation U/S 506 IPC: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

Tags