The Calcutta High Court reaffirms that allegations of wrongful dispossession and trespass over immovable property between private parties, without clear criminal elements, constitute a civil dispute. The judgment clarifies police discretion in registering FIRs and upholds precedent, serving as binding authority for subordinate courts in West Bengal in classifying such matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/1994/2025 of SANJAY KUMAR BASHAK Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCJ0046792025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, Court No. 2 |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal; persuasive for other forums |
| Type of Law | Civil and Criminal Procedure (Interface) |
| Questions of Law | Whether allegations of wrongful dispossession and trespass over immovable property between private parties amount to a purely civil dispute precluding criminal action? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court, after considering the complaint and writ petition, found that the dispute relates to wrongful dispossession and trespass over immovable property between private parties and constitutes a purely civil dispute. Relief under a writ petition was denied. However, police authorities retain the discretion to determine if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence and act accordingly under law. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner alleged wrongful dispossession and illegal trespass from his property by private respondents, stating they unlawfully entered and evicted him in August 2024 and continue in possession. The State and private respondents contended the dispute is civil. The complaint dated June 28, 2025 was examined. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, legal forums |
| Follows | Existing precedent that private disputes over immovable property are to be resolved civilly unless clear criminal elements are present. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that private property disputes alleging wrongful dispossession and trespass, without further criminal elements, constitute civil disputes and do not warrant registration of FIRs.
- Clarifies the limited scope for police intervention in such cases, unless a cognizable offence is disclosed.
- Provides clear precedent for opposing criminal complaints or writs in property disputes lacking criminal mens rea or statutory ingredients.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the complaint and writ petition, noting allegations of unlawful entry and dispossession, but found only civil causes pleaded between private parties regarding immovable property.
- Emphasized that such disputes are to be resolved through civil remedies and do not automatically give rise to criminal proceedings.
- Relied on the absence of specific allegations or elements that would constitute a cognizable criminal offence.
- Clarified that it remains open to police authorities to independently assess the complaint and proceed in accordance with law if any cognizable offence is disclosed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged inaction by police on complaint of wrongful dispossession and illegal trespass.
- Sought relief for police to register an FIR.
Respondent (State and Private Parties)
- Contended the dispute is purely civil in nature pertaining to immovable property.
- Opposed criminal action in what is essentially a private property dispute.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a complaint against the private respondents, alleging that in August 2024 they unlawfully entered his property, forcibly evicted him, and have since remained in possession, denying him access. The petitioner lodged a complaint dated June 28, 2025, alleging wrongful dispossession and sought police intervention. The respondents asserted the matter is civil in nature.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed the complaint in light of civil and criminal procedural law, distinguishing between civil disputes over immovable property and offences justiciable under criminal law.
- No specific sections were interpreted, but the Court emphasized the threshold for police intervention is the disclosure of a cognizable offence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms existing legal distinctions between civil and criminal remedies in property disputes.