{"id":286184,"date":"2023-03-04T17:00:42","date_gmt":"2023-03-04T11:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=286184"},"modified":"2023-03-04T12:55:49","modified_gmt":"2023-03-04T07:25:49","slug":"complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Entry of authorised Bank employee in secured property premises for taking possession doesn&#8217;t fall under &#8220;House Trespass&#8221;: Calcutta High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\tdocument.title = 'Entry of authorised banker for possession not trespass: Calcutta HC | SCC Blog'\n\tdocument.querySelector('meta[name=\"description\"]').setAttribute(\"content\", \"Calcutta High Court held that entry of an authorised Bank employee for taking possession of property does not fall under house trespass IPC.\");\n<\/script><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><b>Calcutta High Court:<\/b> While deciding a case related to quashing of criminal proceeding, <b>Rai Chattopadhyay*, J.<\/b>, held that of authorised Bank employee can enter in secured property premises for taking possession and the same would not come within the purview of the description of &#8220;house trespass&#8221; as provided under S. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561782\">442<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\">Penal Code, 1860<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><b>Factual Matrix<\/b><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the instant matter, the petitioners are the employees of Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC Ltd.) and working as &#8220;Assistant Manager &#8211; Recoveries&#8221; with the corporation. On 14-01-2015, a complaint was filed against the petitioners by the opposite party No. 2 alleging the commission of house trespass (S. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561788\">448<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\">IPC<\/a>), criminal intimidation (S. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561860\">506<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\">IPC<\/a>) and abetment to such offence, in furtherance of their common intention and a police case was started against them. The criminal proceeding under Ss. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561788\">448<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561860\">506<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561366\">114<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561652\">34<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\">IPC<\/a> is pending before the Court Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. Aggrieved by the impugned criminal proceedings initiated against them, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Court to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.<\/p>\n<p><b>Parties&#8217; Contentions<\/b><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The petitioners contended that the criminal proceedings initiated against them was <i>manifestly attended with malafide, maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and private and personal grudge, which would be deprecatory in accordance with law.<\/i> The petitioners further contended that they have acted in order to discharge their duty as the responsible and authorised officer of the company should do as per the statutory provisions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The petitioners contended that the landlord of the opposite party No. 2 is a borrower with the employer of the petitioners and is a defaulter of loan. The petitioners contended that the occupation of the opposite party No. 2 under a tenancy is categorised as the &#8220;secured asset&#8221; in respect of which the company has created security interest. The petitioners further contended that the only remedy available to the borrower is an appeal under the provisions of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780400\">SERFAESI Act, 2002<\/a> and not a criminal proceeding against the petitioners.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The opposite party No. 2 contended that the petitioners exercised intimidation, violence and force to evict and dislodge her from tenanted premises, moreover, they also trespassed into her tenanted premises and in furtherance of their common intention executed threat and intimidation. The opposite party No. 2 contended that she is lawfully occupying the premises and is apprehensive about being unlawfully and forcefully dislodged from the same premises.<\/p>\n<p><b>Court&#8217;s Observation<\/b><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In order to determine if any cognizable case is made against the petitioners, the Court looked into the cardinal principles of the criminal jurisprudence and discussed doctrine of <i>actus non facit reum nisi men sit rea<\/i>, in <i>State of Maharashtra<\/i> v. <i>Mayer Hans George<\/i>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000057105\">AIR 1965 SC 722<\/a> and definition of offence, intention, injury, wrongful loss, wrongful gain under <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\">IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court observed that to hold the petitioners criminally liable of a cognizable offence; <i>the petitioners should have possessed the intention and knowledge of their trespassing any property of others and intimidating the occupiers therein, and also, intimidating them with the same intention and knowledge.<\/i> The Court opined that it is clear that the property in question was the secured asset with the bank and the bank has already exhausted legal formalities for taking possession of the same, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have made an unlawful entry.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Relying on <i>Standard Chartered Bank<\/i> v. <i>V. Nobel Kumar<\/i>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000049079\">(2013) 9 SCC 620<\/a>, the Court accepted the contentions of the petitioners that the only remedy available to the borrower is an appeal under the provisions of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002780400\">SERFAESI Act, 2002<\/a> and not a criminal proceeding against the petitioners.<\/p>\n<p style=\"\">The Court opined that from the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the petitioner, an employee of the bank who is discharging his bona fide duty, has entered the premises of the secured property to exercise the power vested on him by law and in absence of any actus reus or mens rea on his part, he cannot be exposed to criminal liability in order to discharge his function.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><b>&#8220;&#8230;the petitioner who in discharge of his bona fide duty, being the employee of the bank, which is admittedly a secured creditor, has entered the premises of the secured asset \/property in exercise of the power vested on him by law, cannot be entangled with the liability of criminality in absence of any actus reus or mens rea on their part, in discharging that function, as alleged against him in this case.&#8221;<\/b><\/p>\n<p><b>Court&#8217;s Decision<\/b><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">While quashing the impugned criminal proceeding against the petitioners, the Court held that neither the ingredients of the alleged offence are available, nor a case of cognizable offence can be made out against the petitioners.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Dipta Dutta v. State of W.B., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/37saCP38\">2023 SCC OnLine Cal 386<\/a>, decided on 23-02-2022<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment by Justice Rai Chattopadhyay<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee and Ms. Nafisa Yasmin, Counsel for the Petitioners;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">Ms. Faria Hossain and Mr. Anand Keshari, Counsel for the Respondent\/State.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><i>While quashing the impugned criminal proceeding against the petitioners, the Court held that a defaulter borrower holds the secured asset only in trust or symbolic possession and even if the petitioners have entered the said property, the same cannot be marked out as trespassers in other&#8217;s&#8217; property.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":285956,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3201,2513,31591,37361,30517,46572,14261,13001,30941],"class_list":["post-286184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-abetment","tag-Calcutta_High_Court","tag-common-intention","tag-criminal-intimidation","tag-criminal-proceeding","tag-house-trespass","tag-penal-code","tag-quashment","tag-section-482"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Entry of authorised Bank employee in secured property premises for taking possession doesn&#8217;t fall under &#8220;House Trespass&#8221;: Calcutta High Court | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"While deciding a case related to quashing of criminal proceeding, Rai Chattopadhyay*, J., held that of authorised Bank employee can enter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Entry of authorised Bank employee in secured property premises for taking possession doesn&#8217;t fall under &#8220;House Trespass&#8221;: Calcutta High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"While deciding a case related to quashing of criminal proceeding, Rai Chattopadhyay*, J., held that of authorised Bank employee can enter\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-03-04T11:30:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"860\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Entry of authorised Bank employee in secured property premises for taking possession doesn&#8217;t fall under &#8220;House Trespass&#8221;: Calcutta High Court | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-04T11:30:42+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"While deciding a case related to quashing of criminal proceeding, Rai Chattopadhyay*, J., held that of authorised Bank employee can enter\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg\",\"width\":860,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Calcutta High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Entry of authorised Bank employee in secured property premises for taking possession doesn&#8217;t fall under &#8220;House Trespass&#8221;: Calcutta High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Entry of authorised Bank employee in secured property premises for taking possession doesn&#8217;t fall under &#8220;House Trespass&#8221;: Calcutta High Court | SCC Times","description":"While deciding a case related to quashing of criminal proceeding, Rai Chattopadhyay*, J., held that of authorised Bank employee can enter","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Entry of authorised Bank employee in secured property premises for taking possession doesn&#8217;t fall under &#8220;House Trespass&#8221;: Calcutta High Court","og_description":"While deciding a case related to quashing of criminal proceeding, Rai Chattopadhyay*, J., held that of authorised Bank employee can enter","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-03-04T11:30:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":860,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/","name":"Entry of authorised Bank employee in secured property premises for taking possession doesn&#8217;t fall under &#8220;House Trespass&#8221;: Calcutta High Court | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg","datePublished":"2023-03-04T11:30:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"While deciding a case related to quashing of criminal proceeding, Rai Chattopadhyay*, J., held that of authorised Bank employee can enter","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg","width":860,"height":590,"caption":"Calcutta High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/04\/complaint-criminal-proceeding-house-trespass-criminal-intimidation-abetment-ipc-quashment-bank-employee-authorized-duty-revision-allowed-calcutta-high-court-legal-research-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Entry of authorised Bank employee in secured property premises for taking possession doesn&#8217;t fall under &#8220;House Trespass&#8221;: Calcutta High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":217451,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/30\/gau-hc-proof-of-ownership-and-possession-of-land-precondition-for-establishing-charge-of-criminal-trespass\/","url_meta":{"origin":286184,"position":0},"title":"Gau HC | Proof of ownership and possession of land precondition for establishing charge of criminal trespass","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 30, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Gauhati High Court:\u00a0Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby he had acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges under various sections of IPC including Section 447\u00a0(punishment for criminal trespass). The complainant-appellant had alleged that the accused came in a group\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":214934,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/23\/del-hc-charge-of-criminal-trespass-under-s-447-ipc-by-person-claiming-to-be-tenant-not-maintainable-in-absence-of-proof-of-tenancy\/","url_meta":{"origin":286184,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | Charge of criminal trespass under S. 447 IPC by person claiming to be tenant not maintainable in absence of proof of tenancy","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 23, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a petition filed by the allottee of the subject shop who was charged with an offence punishable under Section 447 (punishment for criminal trespass)\u00a0IPC, and quashed the order whereby the charge was farmed against him. The petitioner was the allottee of the subject shop.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":208967,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/29\/sc-settled-possession-of-a-property-means-effective-and-undisturbed-possession\/","url_meta":{"origin":286184,"position":2},"title":"SC| Settled possession of a property means effective and undisturbed possession","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 29, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a matter where the plaintiff had no document to prove his possession of a property,\u00a0but \u00a0 claimed \u00a0 possessory \u00a0 title \u00a0 based \u00a0 on \u00a0 prior possession\u00a0for\u00a0a\u00a0number\u00a0of\u00a0years, the bench of NV Ramana and MM\u00a0Shantanagoudar, JJ held: \u201cMerely\u00a0on\u00a0doubtful material\u00a0and\u00a0cursory\u00a0evidence,\u00a0it\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0held\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff was\u00a0ever\u00a0in\u00a0possession\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0property,\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0too\u00a0in\u00a0settled possession.\u201d Explaining the law of possession of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283636,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/10\/calcutta-high-court-revision-transactions-recovery-clock-criminal-proceeding\/","url_meta":{"origin":286184,"position":3},"title":"Breach of Contract does not give rise to cause of action for Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court reiterates","author":"Editor","date":"February 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court | While deciding a revision petition, Tirthankar Ghosh*, J. held that no offence under Ss. 417 and 426 of the Penal Code, 1860 can be made out from the alleged transactions and a case for recovery can be made out from nature of such transactions, cloaking any\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image95.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":220270,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/28\/cjm-competent-to-deal-with-the-application-moved-by-the-secured-creditor-under-section-14-of-sarfaesi-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":286184,"position":4},"title":"CJM competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 28, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ has held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) is competent to process the request of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298692,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/06\/calcutta-high-court-examines-validity-of-police-investigation-under-fss-act-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":286184,"position":5},"title":"FSSAI | Can Police, not being Food Safety Officers, investigate food safety matters punishable under IPC? Calcutta High Court examines","author":"Ritu","date":"August 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court dismissed all the three criminal revision applications seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings and deemed them groundless.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286184","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=286184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286184\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/285956"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=286184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=286184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=286184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}