Neighbor filed a case against me

Syed Khureshi (Querist) 06 April 2023 This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir
I live in Hyderabad my neighbor filed as case police station saying he unable to sleep because of the noise. Where as my kids are 10years and 5 years old respectively. Police told me to have amicable solution. But i am unable to understand small kids if they watch TV with family or play till 11pm as sometimes as I come home late. What should I do now. He also recording of we watching a movie in night, is it not invasion of privacy, when last year he has troubled us with AC outlet with heat air facing our park lot as well as our hall. We told him and took 1year for him to change one AC duct , but another AC duct at my window,I thought it's small issue never complained in police station. Please suggest me what to do in this regard. What law says about individuals life with house boundaries. What law says about kids playing with time restrictions. Please suggest as we don't do Dj nights or high volume sound(within our home we keep 10-15 volume sound). We want to live in our home as per our convenience not at the mercy of neighbor (since he has filed a case)

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

A person is facing a noise complaint from a neighbour in Hyderabad, who claims the noise from children playing and watching TV until 11 PM prevents them from sleeping. The police have advised an amicable solution, but the resident feels their privacy is being invaded and is considering a counter-case. The discussion includes advice on settling disputes through elders and neighbours, and potential legal actions under the Criminal Procedure Code, such as filing a complaint under Section 107 or seeking an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to prevent a breach of peace.

Isaac Gabriel (Expert) 06 April 2023
It is better to file a counter case causing the inconveniences and health problems meted by the neighbour.

Syed Khureshi (Querist) 06 April 2023
Thank you sir for the reply

kavksatyanarayana (Expert) 06 April 2023
Settle the issue with the elders and other neighbors of your area. And he filed a case, you file a counter by taking the help of a lawyer.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 07 April 2023
This is not a civil nuisance too.
Therefore the police also cannot take any action on the complaint.
If it is developed as a case then you can challenge it legally

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 07 April 2023
It is better to settle the issues amicably with the intervention of neighbours / elderly / respectable persons of society.

ashok kumar singh (Expert) 09 April 2023
agreed with views expressed by our experts. however it is wise to settle issues amicably with intervention of elderly. you may lodge complaint under Section 107 Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate of your District and you may also prefer to lodge complaint under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973;
Section 107 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases.
(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, 1 with or without sureties,] for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.

Section 144 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
144. Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger.
(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub- divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, of an affray.
(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte.
(3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.
(4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof: Provided that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification.
(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under this section, by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor- in- office.
(6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub- section (4).
(7) Where an application under sub- section (5) or sub- section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing. D.- Disputes as to immovable property.

District : South 24 Parganas

In the Court of the Learned Executive Magistrate, at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.

M.P. Case no. of 2022

In the matter of :

Sujit Biswas, Son of Late Nani Bhusan Biswas, residing at Dakshin Gobindapur, Police Station – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700145, District South 24 Parganas.
________Petitioner
- Versus –
Joynagar Police Station
1) Sri Ashok Kumar Mondal, Son of Sri Sridhar Mondal, residing at Village – Chunarpukur, Post Office – Bakultala Notun Hat, Police Stastion Bakultala, District South 24 Parganas, Pin - 743338.

2) Shamim Ahmed Molla, Son of Sri Abu Sallam Molla, residing at Village – Mitraganj Road, Post Office – Joynagar, District South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743337.

3) Khairul Mondal, Son of Abdul Rashid Mondal, residing at Village and Post Office – Joynagar Mazilpur, Police Station – Joynagar, District Soputh 24 Parganas, Pin - 743337.

______Opposite Parties

An application under Section 144(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code’ 1973

The humble petition of the above named petitioner, most respectfully;

Sheweth as under :

1. That the petitioner is a peace loving and law abiding Citizen of the Country, residing at the address as given in the cause title of this application, which is well fall under the jurisdiction of the Learned Court.

2. That the Petitioner is an absolute joint Owner through inheritance, along with other co sharers, from their predecessors, in respect of the immovable properties being Land situated at J.L. No. 16, under Mouza – Ramnarayanpur Village, L.R. Khatian no. 1490, L.R. Dag no. 434, measuring about 28.86 decimals, under L.R. Dag no. 435, measuring about 96.85 decimals, under L.R. Dag no. 436, measuring about 87.43 decimals.

3. That the predecessor in interest one Hiranbala Dasi alias Hiranmoyee Das and her son one Sudhangshu Chowdhury purchased some properties on 10/12/1936, by a registered deed of conveyance which is recorded in Book No. I, Volume no. 22, Pasges 242 to 246, being number 1598. The said registration took place before the Sub Registrar at Joynagar, district South 24 Parganas.

4. That While in possession, said Hiranbala Dassi died intestate on 01.01.1982, leaving behind her 3 sons viz Sudhanghshu Chowdhury, Saroj Chowdhury, Radha Kanta Chowdhury, 4 daughters viz. Rajobala Ghosh, Nanda Rani Bose, Smt. Binapani Dutta and Mina Rani Biswas. They inherited the said Smt. Hiranbala Dassi alias Hiranmoyee Dassi’s undivided 8 Annas or ½ share. Each son and each daughter has inherited undivided 1/7th share in ½ share of the said property i.e. 1/14th share in the whole property.

5. That the said Sudhangshu Chowdhury while owing and possessing the suit property jointly with his co-sharers died intestate in or about 1986 leaving behind 4 sons and 3 daughters and his 2/3rd share. Thereafter, the said Saroj Chowdhury died intestate in 1995 leaving behind him widow Smt. Amalata Chowdhury upon whom the 1/14th share of the said Saroj Chowdhury devolved. While owning and possessing her 1/14th share in the suit property jointly with her co-sharers died intestate in or about 2004 and her share devolved upon the only living sister. Radha Kanta Biswas in equal sharers. Thereafter the said Radha Kanta Chowdhury died intestate in 2011 and his 1/14th + 1/28th share in the suit property develoved upon his only son Pallab Chowdhury, had 3/28th share. Minarani died leaving only her son. Nandarani had 1/14th share who died leaving behind his three daughters Rekha, Roba, and Sobita. They inherited 1/42th share. Through oral partition, the Petitioner has received 10 Kathas of land in the northern side of the schedule described herein below. The Petitioner is a owner of 10 Kathas of Land.

6. That through different deed of conveyance, in 2022, all the legal heirs transferred the properties save and except 10 Kathas of land on northern side. As such the opposite parties are owners of the entire properties of Hiranbala Dassi and Sudhangshu Chowdhury excepting said 10 Cathas of land, which belongs to the Petitioner.

7. That the above stated facts clearly disclosed that the opposite parties have no right, title, and interest over the schedule property of the petitioner. The opposite parties are completely stranger person in respect of 10 (ten) Cothas Land of the Petitioner.

8. That the Petitioner is absolute joint Owner by way of his inheritance from his predecessors, in respect of the Schedule Property being ALL THAT piece and parcel of Land measuring about 10 Cotthas of “Shali” & “Danga” nature, in J.L. No. 16, under Mouza – Ramnarayanpur Village, out of L.R. Khatian no. 1490, L.R. Dag no. 434, measuring about 28.86 decimals, under L.R. Dag no. 435, measuring about 96.85 decimals, under L.R. Dag no. 436, measuring about 87.43 decimals, District South 24 Parganas. The final R.O.R. has been published in favour of the predecessors in interest of the Petitioner. The Petitioner paid the rent to the B.L. & L.R.O. in respect of Schedule property and the other taxes to the concerned Department and Civic Body of the Government in locality.

9. That the Petitioner is in possession of the schedule property, which has been referred herein above, without any hindrances and interferences by any one. The schedule property is in nature of “Shali” & “Danga” as recorded in R.O.R., by the concerned Revenue Officer.

10. That the Opposite Parties have no right, title, and interest by any way on the schedule property of your petitioner. The opposite parties are not attached in any way with the schedule property of your petitioner. The afore-stated schedule property exclusively belong to your petitioner as the same has been confirmed by the revenue officer concerned by way of publication of R.O.R. in favour of your petitioner’s predecessors in interest.

11. That on 12-11-2022, at about 10:30 am in the morning, your Petitioner found that the Opposite Parties with their men and agents trying to encroach the schedule land while raising their boundary wall around the said schedule property. The petitioner raised his objection and obstruction to such unlawful activities of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties got aroused and thereby they used most filthy languages to your petitioner and assaulted to you petitioner by several fist and blows, resulting which your petitioner, sustained solemn bodily pain and feeling much insulted. On hearing such hue and cry of your petitioner the vicinity people come forward and their due intervention the opposite parties leaved the said schedule property with sustainable threat to visit again on the said schedule property of your petitioner to raise boundary walls surrounding the property as they left their bricks and other building materials on the said schedule property of your petitioner.

12. That your petitioner got much depressed after such untoward incident, and went to the police station at Joynagar Police Station, and acknowledge such facts vide written complaint, which has been taken by the Police. The Police taken recourses to resolve but failed and therefore Police officially received such written complaint of the petitioner on 13/11/2022, and whereas the Police advised your petitioners to take appropriate order from the Learned Court of Executive Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, so that the Police can take action in terms of the prescribed provision of the Law, thereof.

13. That the cause of action arose on 12th day of November’ 2022, when the Opposite Parties openly threatened the Petitioner within the premises under the Police Station- Joynagar, which lies in the jurisdiction of this Learned Court.

14. That your Petitioner beg to states that finding no other alternative the petitioner lodge this facts with the concern police station at Joynagar, with a request for the appropriate legal recourses against the opposite parties to prevail law and order at the locality.

15. That the Police did not take any steps in terms of the facts and in the Law, nor cause any enquiry thereof. The opposite parties get indulgence of such inaction of the police authority concern of the Joynagar Police Station, and therefore the Opposite Parties, with their men and agents, trying themselves, time and again to cause enormous disturbance at the schedule property.

16. That in given facts and circumstances, your petitioner is in much disturbance at the schedule premises at the behest and instances of the opposite parties, who deliberately and willfully cause the disturbance on their visit at the schedule premises.

17. That the Opposite parties are creating and sustaining breach of peace at the schedule premises by their unwanted, unauthorized, illegal purported and perverted activities at the schedule premises, with the help of their men, agents and associates thereof.

18. That the Opposite Parties are of dangerous in nature and much perverted to cause disturbance and harassment to your petitioner.

19. That your Petitioner beg to states that the situation is very tensed and there is every possibilities of serious breach of peace due to continuous illegal intervention on the schedule property of the petitioner, thereof.

20. That the petitioner states and submits that the Opposite Parties deliberately, willfully, causes such acts and illegal deeds, breaching peace at the premises of your petitioner, continuously, day by day, and did not stop such illegal activities, even after reporting to the Police.

21. That your petitioner being frightened on seeing vulgar activities of the opposite parties and their members as they are desperate and danger in nature, at any moment a serious breach of peace may occur at the scheduled property, if the opposite parties and their members are not restrained from their illegal and unlawful activities.

22. That the situation is aggravated and tension mounted on your petitioner, have a reasonable apprehension that a serious breach may take place any moment.

23. That the opposite parties are commonly intended to commit the breach of peace under the locality and in a view to establish their wrongful demands and to harass and hackle the petitioner in every manner.

24. That thus the Petitioners are compelled to resort the legal proceeding before this Ld. Court.

25. That this application is made bonafide in the interest of administration of justice.

In the circumstances, it is therefore prayed that your Honour would graciously be pleased to drawn up proceeding under section 144 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code’ 1973, and further be pleased to direct the Officer-in-Charge of Police of the Joynagar Police Station to restrain the Opposite Parties and their men and agents and associates, to enter upon the schedule property of the petitioner, and to stop their illegal and unlawful activities on the schedule property of the petitioner i.e. as described in the schedule, herein, by the opposite parties, and to submit report, and / or to pass such other necessary order or orders as your Honour may deem fit and proper for the end of justice.

And for this act of kindness, your Petitioner, as in duty bound shall ever pray.

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

ALL THAT piece and parcel of Land measuring about 10 Cotthas of “Shali” & “Danga” nature, in J.L. No. 16, under Mouza – Ramnarayanpur Village, out of L.R. Khatian no. 1490, L.R. Dag no. 434, measuring about 28.86 decimals, under L.R. Dag no. 435, measuring about 96.85 decimals, under L.R. Dag no. 436, measuring about 87.43 decimals, Police Station – Jaynagar, District South 24 Parganas.

VERIFICATION

I, Sujit Biswas, Son of Late Nani Bhusan Biswas, residing at Dakshin Gobindapur, Police Station – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700145, District South 24 Parganas, being the petitioner of the instant application, do hereby state that I am well conversant and acquainted with the instant proceeding / case matter and verify this application on ……………..day of …………………..2022, at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.

_____________________
Identified by me,

Advocate.
Prepared in my office.

Advocate.
Dated :………………………..…2022.
Place : Baruipur, South 24-Parganas.

P. Venu (Expert) 14 April 2023
The issues are trivial and routine. More than the Law, the obvious solution lies in meeting of the minds, May be, both the parties need to accommodate by rising above the ego.

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 10 May 2023
Nobody generally gets irritated by late nighht TV watching. The problem appears to be deeper. You have not at all indicated as to how your TV watching is causing annyoance to him.

In case he TV watching is loud he has right to proceed.

You have not clarified as to which game is played at what time by your family. If it causes noise at odd hours (11. PM) the he has a right to complaint.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries