Purchaser Of Property Requesting Tenants To Vacate Or Face Eviction Not Guilty Of 'Criminal Intimidation': Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC initiated by tenants against the purchaser of a property who had asked the tenants to vacate the premises or face eviction.

Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: It is for the respondent no. 2/complainant Garg to file a civil suit. Initiation of the criminal process for oblique purposes, is bad in law and amounts to abuse of process of law. From the materials in the case diary it appears that admittedly there was just one occasion when the petitioner/owner allegedly asked the complainant/tenant to leave the premises. It was after this “one” alleged threat of eviction, the present case has been initiated.

A person who has purchased the property with tenants refusing to vacate  ill normally request the parties to vacate the premises before initiating proceedings for eviction. The ingredients required to substantiate the case of “criminal intimidation” is thus prima facie not made out against thepetitioner and, as such, the proceeding is liable to be quashed, she added.

The present revisional application was filed to quash the proceedings under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The allegations in the written complaint dated 12.04.2017 showed that the dispute was between the tenant and the petitioner who is the subsequent purchaser of the property, regarding vacating of the premises.

From the contents of the written complaint, it appeared that the complainant apprehended forcible eviction.

Court noted that the said apprehension of the complainant is to be addressed before the appropriate Civil Court as it relates to eviction. The present case was initiated as the petitioner allegedly threatened the complainant of forcible eviction.

It was further stated that the Magistrate had directed the enquiry officer to draw proceedings under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a non-cognizable offence but, the officer initiated an FIR and the same also ended in a charge-sheet which appeared to be an abuse of the process of law.

Court thereafter looked at Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC, dealing with criminal intimidation. It was held that the complainant had not appeared before the Court and there were numerous judgements distinguishing between civil and criminal liability. 

Repeated judgments of this Court, however, are somehow overlooked, and are not being applied and enforced, the court stated.

Accordingly, the case was quashed and the plea was allowed.

Case: Sudip Pal Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No: CRR 128 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 278

Click here to read order