Landlord Threatening Tenant With Eviction Doesn't Amount To Criminal Intimidation U/s. 506 IPC: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court held that a landlord threatening a tenant with eviction doesn't amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court was considering an Application seeking quashing of proceedings in case registered under Sections 448, 511, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Bench of Justice 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 Applicant was represented by Advocate Dr. Achin Jana, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Mukteswar Maity.

Facts of the Case

The allegation levelled in the Complaint was that Opposite Party no. 2/ Complainant is a businessman carrying on his business in a rented accommodation. After the demise of the original landlord, in spite of repeated intimation, nobody agreed to issue rent receipt to the Complaint. Opposite Party No. 2 then started depositing rent before the rent controller. 

Thereafter, Petitioner, along with unknown persons, threatened him to oust him from the Suit premises without following due course of law. It was alleged that 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 the Opposite Party No. 2 forcibly, and in spite of due intimation given to the local Police Station, they had not taken any action.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that before the instant proceeding, a proceeding under Section 144(2) was started by the Petitioner wherein Police had submitted a report where concerned Police Officer had disclosed that when Police 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 and it was further reported that the Complainant is trying to grabe the property from the two widowed women by filing fictitious litigation with concocted story to occupy the said premises.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the allegations as revealed in the FIR are that the Petitioners have made an attempt to make house trespass in the property in possession of the de facto complainant. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's decision in Abhishek Saxena vs. State of Uttar Pradesh wherein it was held that held if ingredients of the offences are wanting in the charge sheet, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal prosecution to continue. 

".....I find that though they have alleged that suddenly they found that the window door of the wire house was removed completely and a cemented wall was built blocking the whole room and thereby the de facto complainant was completely prevented from using the said tenanted wire house, but I find, nowhere in the statements that it has been alleged that the present petitioners had made any attempt to make house trespass or they have committed any offence as alleged in the FIR", the Court observed.

It was of the view that the materials available during the investigation do not show that the Petitioners have done anything, which may attract any of the ingredients of Section 448/511 of IPC. It clarified that a landlord threatening tenant with eviction can be intimidating but it doesn't amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

"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 which is not permissible in the eye of law", the Court observed.

The Application was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Ratan Kumar Roy @ Ratan Kr. Roy vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocates Dr. Achin Jana, Falguni Bandyopadhyay, Prosenjit Ghosh, Riya Ballav, B. Dali, J. Dhar and Chetna Rustagi

Respondent- Advocates Mukteswar Maity, Debesh Mishra and Manika Sarkar

Click here to read/ download Order