Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The opposite party no. 2 then lodged a First Information Report with New Barrackpore Police Station being 335 of 2019 dated 02.09.2019 under Section 323, 354, 504, 506, 427, 461 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the said complaint that on 10.08.2019, your petitioner and his men and agents took forceful occupation of the site of the opposite party no. 2 by breaking lock and key of the site office and ransacked the stock materials and damaged the property of the office valued at Rs. 10 lakh and drove away the office and security personnel and displayed the banner of the company of your petitioner.

Mr. Sujata Das learned Counsel for the State is present. It is submitted by the State that the offences as alleged has been clearly made out against the accused persons during investigation. The case diary along with a memo of evidence has been filed in Court and as such the revision is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned lawyer for the petitioner and the State. Perused the materials on record. Considered.

6

The complaint lodged before the police by the opposite party no. 2 shows that the allegation against the present petitioner and others being the Director of the Partnership Firm Vasudevay Vanijya LLP Office in Kolkata is that they allegedly on 08.10.2019 took forcible occupation of the complainant's site at Talbandha Siddha Town office room by breaking lock and key of the side office and ransacked the materials and damaged the property of the complainant's office valued at Rs. 10 lakhs. Further allegation is that the petitioner manhandled one staff of the defacto complainant and also another female staff. It has been stated in the written complaint that the petitioner herein Abhishek Bhuwalka has no legal papers as to the ownership of the premises in question.

From the case diary it is seen that statement of witnesses (few) have been recorded and finding a prima facie case, the present case has ended in charge sheet. But the case diary does not contain the statement of Subhasish Ghosh and the female staff who were allegedly manhandled by the accused. From the materials on record and the Registered Development Agreement dated 16th July, 2019 it transpires that the dispute between the parties is regarding the said development agreement relating to a property which is owned by the opposite party no. 2's company and the petitioner's partnership firm as the developer. Admittedly there has been a dispute which occurred after the said agreement was registered, regarding possession of the property in question. It is the case of the complainant that the developer/petitioner's firm tried to take forcible possession of the land. On the other hand it is seen that the petitioner has filed several cases under Section 144(2) of Cr.P.C. and other provisions of the Cr.P.C. against the opposite party. It is the case of the petitioner that after execution of the development agreement the opposite party is not aligning the petitioner into the disputed site. It is submitted that the opposite party is not complying with the terms and conditions as laid down in the development agreement. On the other hand it is the case of the complainant that the petitioner's company and its men and agent tried to take forcible possession of the complaint's site (admittedly owner) by breaking lock and key of the office and causing other damage including manhandling of staff.

(4) He did so dishonestly or with the intention of committing mischief."

The offence alleged by the opposite party in their written complaint is that on 10.08.2019, the petitioner and his men and agents took forceful occupation of the site of the opposite party no. 2 by breaking lock and key of the site office and ransacked the stock/ materials and damaged the property of the office valued at Rs. 10 lakh and drove away the office and security personnel and displayed the banner of the company of your petitioner.