Bulan Shil vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the State and its officers who had submitted the case diary on the earlier date. A part of the record containing parawise comments from the respondents has also been produced before today in this court. In response to Para-5 of the petition, the respondents have stated as follows:

It is a fact that the petitioner submitted a written complaint before the OC Amtali PS on 28.06.2020 which was received by the duty officer of the Police Station on behalf of the OC PS. The petitioner in her complaint specifically mentioned that a case on matrimonial dispute between her and her husband was pending in the family court. As per report of the OC Amtali PS after submission of the complaint on 28.06.2020, the petitioner verbally requested the duty officer of Amtali PS not to register the case instantly and to allow her 3/4 days time to settle up the dispute with her husband. Since the matter was related to matrimonial dispute, request of the petitioner was considered by the duty officer. This refers Amtali PS GD Entry No.25 dated 28.06.2020. On 02.07.2020 the petitioner again appeared at Amtali PS and told that their matrimonial dispute could not be resolved and she wanted to register a specific case. Accordingly, on 02.07.2020 a specific case was registered at Amtali PS on the complaint of the petitioner vide No.2020AMT059 U/s 447/357/323/506/34 IPC and case was endorsed to W/SI Niva Singha for investigation. Investigation of the case is in progress.

Such parawise comment is approved by the competent authority and Mr. Datta, learned PP has stated that the veracity of the statement is based on the record. The dispute for non-registration of the case is, therefore, no more exists but at this juncture, Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the materials as catalogued in the list of articles [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] could not be collected by the petitioner for illegal intervention by some anti-social elements. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has further submitted that in support of the ownership of this materials, the landlord, namely Babul Datta has affirmed a declaration which has been annexed with this petition as Annexure-4. In the said declaration, the landlord has stated inter alia as follows:

"That, Smt. Bulan Shil used to reside in the ground floor of my two-storied residential building with her daughter whereas I stayed in the first floor with my family.

*          *          *

That, all the articles inside my rented room are of Bulan Shil's and I have no objection in handing over those to Bulan Shil who is the rightful owner of those articles but due to their threat that I will have to face dire consequences if I handed over her articles, I could not handover the same out of fear."

Mr. Datta, learned PP has submitted that there is counter claim over those materials by one Ranu Das [Saha] and such claim would be evident from the application filed by said Ranu Das [Saha] to the Officer-in-Charge, Amtali Police Station vide GD Entry No.48 dated 23.08.2020. The relevant part of the said application is referred on verbatim translation.

"My husband, Sri Sushanta Saha on 15.12.2018 abandoned my children and myself. After sometimes, he transferred the viti wherefrom he used to sell meat in Tulshibati Market and with the money he got from the transaction to the extent of Rs.1,70,000/- he started living in a rented house. In the month of June, 2019 he took our son Surjyadip with him. Once from that rented house my husband had shown over Whats App video call the furniture and other materials in the said room. Subsequently, I came to know that my husband was living with one Smt. Bulan Shil of Bhati Abhoynagar for last one year by developing an illicit relation with her. I caught them red handed in the said rented house and I demanded all the furniture and materials but said Bulan Shil [Kundu] claimed the ownership over those materials. Hence, I demand to return of all the materials."

Mr. Datta, learned PP has further contended that when the title is questioned unless the documents relating to the ownership such as the purchase vouchers are shown in respect of the furniture/materials as catalogued in Annexure-1 to the petition, those should not be handed over to the petitioner.

Having due regard to the claim and the counter claim, this court does not have any difficulty to draw an inference as regards the apparent ownership. The apparent ownership lies with the petitioner as Sri Sushanta Saha did not claim any stake. Thus, the Officer-in-Charge of Amtali Police Station is directed to hand over the furniture and the materials as catalogued in Annexure-1 to the petition to the petitioner in presence of the landlord. The Officer-in-Charge of Amtali Police Station shall ensure that no untoward incident takes place during handing over of those materials. The petitioner shall furnish a bond to the Officer-in-Charge of Amtali Police Station to the effect that if in any court of law the ownership of those materials are established by any person, the petitioner shall be bound to return all those furniture/materials. In the bond, the petitioner must undertake that in the event of failure to return such furniture/materials, she shall be liable to pay Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five thousand] in lieu of those furniture/materials.

The petitioner shall appear before the Officer-in-Charge of Amtali Police Station, and the Officer-in-Charge shall fix a date for handing over of those furniture/materials. Accordingly, the entire process shall come to an logical end.

In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of.

A copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Records as produced be returned to the Officer-in-Charge, Amtali Police Station through the learned P.P.