IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) CRR 4417 of 2024 Jaba Haldar Mukherjee & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the Petitioners : Mr. Soham Banerjee. For the State : Mr. Debasis Kar, Mr. Arka Tilak Bhadra, Ms. Paramita Mukherjee. Judgment reserved on : 13.07.2026 Judgment delivered on : 17.07.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. The revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of proceedings being Complaint Case No. 394 of 2024, corresponding to M. P. Case No. 329 of 2024 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Barrakpore, North 24 Parganas under Sections 323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The present case was initiated on an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. wherein it appears that the parties are neighbours staying 2 in the same apartment. The dispute in the present case relates to some altercation and abusive language and alleged assault. 3. The learned Magistrate on receiving a police report was pleased to not direct the registration of an FIR but directed the same to be registered as a complaint case. 4. The report of the police in the said case which was initially registered as M. P. Case No. 329 of 2024 is at page 28 to the revisional application and is dated 25.04.2024. 5. In the said report it appears that there are some disturbances between the parties. The Enquiry Officer examined witnesses and finally reported as follows:- “During enquiry I examined some witnesses namely i) Jibon Krishna Ghosh S/o Fabindranath Ghosh ii) Jayanta Bhattacharjee S/o Biswanath Bhattacharjee and asked about the incident which was occurred on 06.01.2024 and they stated that on that day a celebration was going on at the roof top where the petitioner along with their relatives were present and they left the main door of the apartment in open condition. At that time the secretary of the said apartment Jaba Halder Mukherjee noticed that and asked the petitioner to lock the main entrance as many cars/ motorcycles were parked in the garaj and any time theft may occur if the main door is open. At that time a hot altercation took place. After that the petitioner lodged a GDE at this PS vide Rahara PS GDE No 385. After that ASI Naru 3 Gopal Sarkar enquired into the matter and after enquiry he submitted a prosecution u/s 107 Cr.P.C vide Rahara PS NCR No. 7/24 dt 07.01.2024 against the petitioner's husband as he break the breach of peace of the area. During enquiry I also asked the petitioner to produce any documents /witnesses to establish her allegation which she mentioned in her original petition. But she failed to provide the same.” 6. It appears from the materials on record that in spite of such a report, the complaint case was registered on being directed by the Magistrate. Admittedly, no medical paper was filed. No injury was caused to the complainant. 7. Written notes along with the judgements were filed by the petitioners herein and case diary along with memo of evidence by the State. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:- a) (1998) 5 SCC 749, Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. b) (2015) 12 SCC 420, (Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda & Ors. With Safaraz Pathan & Anr. Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda & Ors.). 9. The Opposite Party herein has relied upon the following judgement which is as follows:- a) 2026 SC 42, C. S. Prasad Vs. C. Satyakumar & Ors. 4 10. Learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party relying upon the said judgments submits that civil liability and criminal liability may arise from same set of facts and that pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings does not bar prosecution where ingredients of a criminal offence are disclosed. 11. The private opposite party/complainant submits that the prayer of the petitioners is based on facts and that it is for the Trial Court to ascertain the veracity of the said facts by way of adducing evidence and that the case should be permitted to proceed towards trial on the revisional application being dismissed. 12. From the materials on record it appears that the police on enquiry found that it was the complainant’s husband who had committed breach of peace and a prosecution was submitted against him. 13. In such a case Application of Mind: A Magistrate’s order directing registration of a case cannot be passed mechanically, they must apply their judicial mind and record reasons for disagreeing with the police’s negative findings. 14. The petitioner no. 1 is the Secretary of the apartment/society where the parties are neighbours and it appears that an altercation was alleged to have taken place due to some disagreement. 15. The police on inquiry found that it was the husband of the complainant who was responsible for the breach of peace during the incident even though nothing could be found by the police against the accused persons/petitioner’s herein, the Magistrate proceeded against the 5 petitioners herein, without any application of mind and without recording any reasons for registration of a complaint case. 16. In State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, decided on 21 November, 1990, the Supreme Court held:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 17. In the present case, there are no ingredients to even prima facie make out a case for the offences alleged. 18. Considering the proximity and dispute between the parties, the present case is covered under clauses 1 and 3 of Para 102 in Bhajan Lal (Supra). 19. As such permitting such a case to proceed would be an abuse of the process of law/Court and as such the present case is liable to be quashed to meet the ends of Justice. 20. CRR 4417 of 2024 is allowed. 21. The proceedings being Complaint Case No. 394 of 2024, corresponding to M. P. Case No. 329 of 2024 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Barrakpore, North 24 Parganas under Sections 323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed. 22. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of. 23. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 24. Let a copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned trial court at once. 7 25. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)