Smt. Puspa Das vs Unknown on 10 August, 2017

1

10.08.2017
711
RP Ct.28 WP 13951 (W) of 2017

In the matter of : Smt. Puspa Das
…. Petitioner

Mr. Mukteswar Maity
Mrs. M. Bhattacharya
…. For the Petitioner
Mr. Tapas Kumar Mondal
…. For the Private Respondent

Mrs. Chama Mukherjee
Ms. Sujata Ghosh
…. For the State

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner who is an
octogenarian lady that the private respondents, being her son and
daughter-in-law, are subjecting her to harassment and criminal
intimidation and as a result she is unable to reside in her own
property.

Report is filed on behalf of the State-respondents wherefrom it
appears that the petitioner had earlier entered into a development
agreement with one Biswajit Das, proprietor of M/s. Das Builder, to
develop the property in the year 2008. But the respondent no.8
refused to vacate the property. A title suit being T.S. No.23961 of
2012 was instituted by the said developer against the petitioner and
the respondent no.5 which is pending before the learned 5th Civil
Judge, Jr. Division at Alipore. During the pendency of the said title
suit another development agreement was executed with Kanu
Ghosh. Proceeding under Section 125(1) CrPC was instituted by the
petitioner against the respondent no.5. Respondent no.6 had
instituted a proceeding under Section 498A/34 IPC against the
petitioner which ended in an order of acquittal. Report be kept with
the record. A copy of the report be handed over to the learned
Advocates for the parties in course of the day.

2

In view of the aforesaid facts, I observe that the civil rights of
the parties shall be decided in the pending civil suit in accordance
with law. It is also observed that as the petitioner is in possession
of the said property, I direct the Officer-in-Charge, Haridevpur Police
Station, respondent no.4 herein, to ensure that there is no breach of
public peace and tranquility in and around the premises in question
due to the wrongful acts of the private respondents.

However, if the action of the private respondents constitute
cognizable offences in future, it shall also be open to the petitioner
to institute appropriate criminal proceeding against them in
accordance with law.

Needless to mention that the lawful orders/directions passed
by the aforesaid judicial authorities be implemented by the police
authorities in accordance with law.

Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations contained in
the petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the
respondents.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, upon compliance
of all formalities.

(JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.)
3

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *