Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

A posts related to self defence/ home defence. Please post anything related to legal aspects in the 'Legal Eagle' section.
Post Reply
bennedose
Shooting true
Shooting true
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by bennedose » Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:29 pm

This article is marginally more clear
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ty-kolkata
KOLKATA: Three days and 13 arrests later, police are finally tracking down the behind-the-scenes players in the Short Street controversy. Realtor Parag Majmudar was arrested at the airport on Wednesday afternoon for allegedly masterminding the property takeover bid, which resulted in a shooting that killed two young men.

Parag, a Kalighat-based broker known to hobnob with a section of Trinamool Congress leaders, is alleged to have floated Heartline Estates Pvt Ltd in Kolkata with the sole aim of buying the 9A Short Street property. He bought it for Rs 10 lakh, registered it in Mumbai, sold it to Sanjay Sureka for Rs 8.5 crore and was trying to wind up the firm, say police.

"He was arrested at 3.30pm at Kolkata airport with a bagful of documents. He had a boarding pass for Mumbai. We suspect he is the mastermind," said joint commissioner-crime Pallab Kanti Ghosh. The irony is that Mamata Agarwal had filed three complaints against Parag at Shakespeare Sarani police station but he wasn't even questioned. On Wednesday night, however, Parag will be brought face-to-face with Mamata for a grilling at the Lalbazar library that has been turned into an interrogation room, say sources.

Parag is the MD of Ritman Group and was the first governing council member of National Real Estate Development Council from eastern India. Police say he had planned a clean exit after raking in crores for the Short Street property but friend-turned-foe Ratnanlal Nahata proved to be a thorn in his side. Parag has told interrogators that he was tricked by Nahata — he claims Nahata took Rs 75 lakh to move out of the premises but stayed put. The duo fell out in 1999.

Heartline Estates was incorporated with the registrar of companies, Kolkata, on September 10, 1997. On June 21-22, 1999, Heartline bought the disputed 9A Short Street property for Rs 10 lakh. The title deed was registered in Mumbai after which the company approached the Company Law Board's Mumbai bench to shift its operations to Kolkata. In 2010, he sold the property to Sanjay Sureka for Rs 8.5 crore, and immediately started winding up the firm, say police. Parag signed as the confirming party in the Sureka deal and used his clout in political circles to have the title deed registered and the mutation completed, say investigators.

Heartline started with a Rs 1.05-lakh paid-up capital. Those in the know of such deals say companies like this are born for specific property deals and die once they outlive the purpose. Heartline and Parag's Ritman House share the same address: 14 Syed Amir Ali Avenue. According to the Registrar of Companies, Parag wasn't a director on the Heartline board. Deepak Badiyani, Rajesh Damani and Dilip Kumar Das were — and one of them is also a director of 17 other companies, mostly Mumbai-based, all within 2010-13.

Parag's plan didn't work according to the script because of Nahata and Mamata, say police. Unable to take control of the property, he was under tremendous pressure to return the Rs 8.5 crore to Sureka. He paid back Rs 1.8 crore and was biding his time, say police. Nahata's recent hospitalization gave him the impetus for a takeover bid, say police. But Mamata again scuppered it.

For Advertising mail webmaster
bennedose
Shooting true
Shooting true
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by bennedose » Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:35 pm

There is a detailed description with graphics here
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131112/j ... opIDaqwdox

As far as I can make out, the property issue seems to be as follows:

The property in question was apparently sold to Nahata, the owner of the guns whose "niece" Mamta Agarwal lived on the premises and fired the gun/s on the fateful night. The property was apparently sold by Nahata to a Parag Majumdar, who then sold that property at a huge profit to a Mumbai man (Sureka). According to Parag, Nahata should have moved out of the property, but did not, although he was paid for it. Parag was under pressure from the Mumbai buyer, Sureka to either get him the property or return the money. Parag says Nahata doble crossed him. The attempt to take over the property in the dead of night was possibly because the gun owner Nahata was in hospital. But Mamta the niece foiled the takeover by shooting up the trespassers. It is not clear whether Mamta and her "uncle" Nahata actually double crossed Parag Majumdar or not. One of those news items claims that a court had declared Parag's sale to Sureka as valid.

Murky stuff.

User avatar
BowMan
One of Us (Nirvana)
One of Us (Nirvana)
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by BowMan » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:50 am

Thanks for the details TC and Bennedose. So it seems the things were not as simple as some would want to believe. It is an interesting turn of facts to me to come to know that the lady and her relative had sold the property for a consideration and that they were continuing occupancy of this house in what could deemed as an illegal act - squatting.

If this can be proved that it was so then the whole self defense argument could possibly come to a naught. In our country as in UK and USA the rights of a house owner to protect himself, his family and property are based on the castling doctrine. But I do not see any possibility of this being a valid argument here if the lady and her relatives are proved to be squatters. You can not occupy premises that do not belong to you and then shoot trespassers in order to defend what is not your in the first place!?

But there would be more details that need to be ascertained. Was there an eviction notice which was lawfully served to them? Was any member of the other party armed and did he brandish or threaten the lady in any way that could be deemed as posing an eminent threat to her?

Given the interesting events I believe we all have a lot to learn from this case and it and the thread could be possibly made a sticky and the be updated regularly as and when new details unravel or play out in the courts. Sadly such cases are not uncommon in India and there are many parallels that I know of that took place during riots, civil unrest and so on.

It would be very interesting and could be an eye owner to many members to know how they think the SD laws should function but how do things actually work out in the real world.

:cheers:

goodboy_mentor
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 2928
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by goodboy_mentor » Tue Nov 19, 2013 3:14 pm

Let us not confuse the matters of civil cases with criminal cases. Property disputes are civil cases. Civil cases can be interconnected together and adjudicated. Criminal cases cannot be interconnected with other cases and adjudicated. Every criminal case is decided as a separate violation of the provisions of criminal law and decided accordingly.

What the law books say and how the law is actually implemented or not implemented in India is another topic of discussion!
"If my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your State, it probably means that you built your State on my land" - Musa Anter, Kurdish writer, assassinated by the Turkish secret services in 1992

User avatar
essdee1972
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by essdee1972 » Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:08 pm

A few points in the narrative stand out through the murk......

1. Person A conned the ancestal owners out of their property (buying that size of a property in that location in 1997 for 10 lacs is a con, whatever he might say).
2. Person A hired person B to "look after" the property, including some future con jobs in the plan.
3. Person B took advantage and refused to vacate.
4. Person A used extra-legal means to oust person B, in which incident a lady related somehow to person B, shot and killed a couple of the extra-legals.

Person A (Majumdar) has legal title, whether or not he conned the original owners. Person B (Nahata) does not have legal title and can be called a squatter. Similarly, Ms. Agarwal, being resident of the property in question under the aegis of Nahata, is also legally a squatter.

So how does one remove squatters legally? By calling the cops or by charging with goons? By using muscle power, Person A has put himself in the dock, whereas he could easily have used his money and political power to legally oust the squatters. I am surprised that a property dealer, of such long time standing (member of governing council and all that), did this rather spur-of-the-moment act for a measly (to a property dealer) 8.5 crores! A few judicial investments in Rajarhat/New Town could have gained him 10 or 100 times that much.

But. coming back to the original story, doesn't a squatter have a right to self defense with a lethal weapon when being ousted by extra-legal force? Remember, she was not approached by police / lawyers with a piece of paper, but by 20 robust (security guards!) young people in the dead of the night.
Cheers!

EssDee
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a polity, each citizen is to possess his own arms, which are not supplied or owned by the state.Aristotle

Get up, stand up, Stand up for your rights. Get up, stand up, Don't give up the fight.Bob Marley

bennedose
Shooting true
Shooting true
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by bennedose » Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:24 pm

essdee1972 wrote: But. coming back to the original story, doesn't a squatter have a right to self defense with a lethal weapon when being ousted by extra-legal force? Remember, she was not approached by police / lawyers with a piece of paper, but by 20 robust (security guards!) young people in the dead of the night.
Good question. I am no expert in legal matters but everyone has a right to self defence. However the only thing mentioned in this regard in one news item is that the lady did say that she was attacked and her clothes torn - so the police (as per the report) initially treated it as self defence. But later, when they looked at the security camera footage it did not fit in with her version of the story and she was apparently seen moving from one place to another, firing a weapon and exchanging a weapon with aguard. the police then decided to arrest her as per one of the reports posted earlier.

None of the reports actually mentions the lady as a co-accused in any of the land deals and for all we know she may not have known about the enemies that her "uncle"/friend Shri Nahata had made. She may well have been acting on the impression that she was a legal occupant of that property. But it looks like it will be a long long time before she gets out of jail, if at all.

User avatar
essdee1972
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by essdee1972 » Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:49 am

The case seems to be made up of stupid people. One the builder, who for 8.5 crores is damaging his reputation. Two, a lady whose "evidence manufacturing" (tearing her own clothes, etc.) is caught on HER OWN CCTVs. Why didn't she switch it off? If she had enough presence of mind to shoot people through the head (being untrained on guns, I assume), as well as "concoct a story", why get caught on your own CCTVs??
Cheers!

EssDee
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a polity, each citizen is to possess his own arms, which are not supplied or owned by the state.Aristotle

Get up, stand up, Stand up for your rights. Get up, stand up, Don't give up the fight.Bob Marley

User avatar
BowMan
One of Us (Nirvana)
One of Us (Nirvana)
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by BowMan » Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:34 pm

But. coming back to the original story, doesn't a squatter have a right to self defense with a lethal weapon when being ousted by extra-legal force? Remember, she was not approached by police / lawyers with a piece of paper, but by 20 robust (security guards!) young people in the dead of the night.
There are cases in which a gun owner has been charged and found guilty of homicide when he has fired at a intruder who was not yet inside this home but was still in his front lawn. The legal argument being he could have barricaded himself and his family inside his house and averted the showdown. By firing at him when he was still in the yard, the law deemed that he had taken the fight to him. Similar is the case if one has shot an intruder in his back who is in the act of running away.

All SD Legal experts agree on this that the best advice in such situations is for a man to barricade himself and his family and if despite this the intruder breaks the barricade then the gun owner has a much more clearly defined reason to unleash lethal force at the trespasser.

Another question the prosecution will like to explore in this case is was there an eminent danger of assault on the women that she had to defend herself by firing at the men? One thing that is common in most cases where a gun owner had to use his gun and was successfully able to defend himself in the courts is was he able to make out a clear pattern of escalating danger towards him or his family and can he define his attempts to deescalate and avert the showdown which failed.

This is just my opinion. The law will now look at the matter and things will unravel and that is why we can have a lot to learn by closely studying such incidents.

User avatar
TC
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 1805
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:50 am
Location: Kolkata

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by TC » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:11 pm

A crucial update on the case.

This afternoon, on the 88th day since the incident took place in November last year, the Kolkata Police filed chargesheet against Mamta Jaiswal in court, accusing her and the person (s) she had deployed as bodyguards with murder. I am yet to get the details from our correspondent. But I am sure IFG members can find the reports in tomorrow's newspapers and TV channels.

TC

User avatar
farook
Shooting true
Shooting true
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by farook » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:23 pm

As mentioned earlier she was safe as long as she fired the shot in the air and drove the guards off. Her act of entering into every room and blowing off the heads of the guards with the shot gun at point black range is just inhumane.... She would have to fight a long legal battle now, its not all her fault, she had asked the police for protection.....so much for police and judiciary system......

In defense of Mamta
1. She has no criminal record
2. She warned the police repeatedly her life was under threat they ignored it.
3. What were those bunch of security guards doing trespassing at 4 AM.


What may be the charges on her.
1. Use of excessive force, she opened fire on unarmed guards killing two of them.

What would you say the verdict would be do you think she can get bail...
Nothing has shaped the history more than a Gun

spin_drift
Almost at nirvana
Almost at nirvana
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Noida

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by spin_drift » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:13 am

I believe that her actions can be justified under Section 105 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 which states the following:
Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property.-- The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences. The right of private defence of property against theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered. The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues. The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief. The right of private defence of property against house- breaking by night continues as long as the house- trespass which has been begun by such house- breaking continues.
I believe in second chances… it’s called reloading

User avatar
essdee1972
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by essdee1972 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:57 am

Spin Drift, I believe the right to protection of property has been revoked under our "socialist" govt. The British, believing that "every Englishman's home is his castle" (which rule was in turn brought in to give "commoners" similar property rights as the "nobility" with castles), also extended that rule to India (knowing fully well that their Raj depended upon protection of Indians' properties and establishing the rule of law). Our socialist sarkaar, in their insane urge to follow the USSR, revoked this at the same time as they abolished zamindari. This is as per my understanding of what I read on the net.

Our lawyer friends can confirm if I am right.
Cheers!

EssDee
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a polity, each citizen is to possess his own arms, which are not supplied or owned by the state.Aristotle

Get up, stand up, Stand up for your rights. Get up, stand up, Don't give up the fight.Bob Marley

bennedose
Shooting true
Shooting true
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by bennedose » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:12 am

spin_drift wrote:I believe that her actions can be justified under Section 105 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 which states the following:
Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property.-- The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences. The right of private defence of property against theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered. The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues. The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief. The right of private defence of property against house- breaking by night continues as long as the house- trespass which has been begun by such house- breaking continues.
This hinges on whether the lady was a legal owner of the the property or was otherwise employed to defend the property.

spin_drift
Almost at nirvana
Almost at nirvana
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Noida

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by spin_drift » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:45 pm

essdee1972 wrote:Spin Drift, I believe the right to protection of property has been revoked under our "socialist" govt. The British, believing that "every Englishman's home is his castle" (which rule was in turn brought in to give "commoners" similar property rights as the "nobility" with castles), also extended that rule to India (knowing fully well that their Raj depended upon protection of Indians' properties and establishing the rule of law). Our socialist sarkaar, in their insane urge to follow the USSR, revoked this at the same time as they abolished zamindari. This is as per my understanding of what I read on the net.

Our lawyer friends can confirm if I am right.
As far as i know section 105 of the Cr.P.C is still present and as not been revoked...
I believe in second chances… it’s called reloading

spin_drift
Almost at nirvana
Almost at nirvana
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Noida

Re: Lady and guards shoot intruders in Kolkata

Post by spin_drift » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:49 pm

bennedose wrote:
This hinges on whether the lady was a legal owner of the the property or was otherwise employed to defend the property.
As far as I know she was legally entitled to be in that property... she had not been served with an eviction notice.. it does not matter if she was the owner of the property or not...
I believe in second chances… it’s called reloading

Post Reply