IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. 4113 of 2024 With CRAN 6 of 2026 Kanai Lal Hazra & Anr. Versus Jhunu Sen & Anr. For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Nure Zaman, Adv. Heard on : 28.07.2026 Judgment on : 28.07.2026 Uploaded On : 28.07.2026 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.: 1. Affidavit of service, filed on behalf of the petitioners, is taken on record. 2. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties. 2 3. By filing this revisional application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Surakasha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the Petitioners/accused persons prayed for quashing of the complaint being C. Case No. 819 of 2023 pending before the learned 4th Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, 24 Parganas (North). 4. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 herein had lodged one complaint before Ghola P.S. being FIR No. 401 dated 06.09.2023 under Sections 341/325/506/509/34 of IPC against one Sona Sen and Jhunu Sen on the allegation that they were throwing their household garbage from their house to the petitioners’ house every day and when the petitioners raised objection, Sona @ Mrityunjay Sen attacked petitioner No. 1 on his head resulting he suffered injury. The said incident took place on 06.09.2023. 5. An investigation was initiated against them and finally after culmination of the investigation, a charge-sheet being No. 505 dated 26.09.2023 has been submitted on 26.09.2023 against both the accused persons, namely, Sona Sen and Jhunu Sen under Sections 341/323/506/509/34 of the IPC, when a prima facie case was established against them. 6. Just after filing the charge-sheet, the accused person, namely, Jhunu Sen filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal 3 Procedure on the similar allegations before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, 24 Parganas (North) against five accused persons including the present petitioners on the self- same incident in which a charge-sheet has already been submitted against them. The learned trial court took cognizance and issued summons against the present petitioners. Hence, this case. 7. Having heard the submissions and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the incident originally took place on 06.09.2023 and against such incident, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner No. 1 against Jhunu Sen and Sona Sen. After investigation, a charge-sheet against them was submitted under Sections 341/323/506/509/34 IPC. 8. After filing charge-sheet, the complaint was filed before the learned trial court by Jhunu Sen indicating that the incident took place on 05.09.2023 at about 9.30 A.M. However, no complaint was lodged before the concerned police station on 05.09.2023. The allegation mentioned in the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate, inter alia, is that the petitioners used to quarrel with the complainant over the issue of throwing garbage. When the complainant raised the same, the Petitioners entered the house of the complainant and threw their household garbage in the kitchen of the complainant. 4 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court finds that the complaint filed by Smt. Jhunu Sen before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas is an afterthought, false and fabricated. Same is only to counter the Charge sheet submitted against Smt. Jhunu Sen and Sona Sen. The complaint did not disclose any sufficient materials to constitute offence as alleged against the present Petitioners. Therefore, complaint appears frivolous and malicious and further, there are no sufficient materials in support of the offence punishable under Sections 425/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code. No injury report or any supporting materials transpire from the entire case records against the present petitioners. 10. In view of the facts as stated above, this Court finds that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings otherwise it would cause serious prejudice and great oppression to the petitioners. 11. We should not forget at this moment the well-settled law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal & Ors.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the basic points for consideration pursuant to which a complaint may be entertained in accordance with law before a Court of law. The Hon’ble Court has laid down as to when the extraordinary power of this Court 1 AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604: 1992 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 5 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be espoused. Relevant portion thereof may beneficially be quoted herein below: - “102. This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of CrPC 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 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that 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 to 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 6 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) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7 (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.” 12. In the light of above discussions and in view of observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgment, this Court is fully satisfied that this case falls in the Categories (1) and (7) mentioned above. 13. Accordingly, CRR 4113 of 2024 is allowed. Connected application being CRAN 6 of 2026 is also disposed of. 14. The proceeding being C. Case No. 819 of 2023 pending before the learned 4th Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, 24 Parganas (North) is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 15. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned trial court for information. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. All parties shall act in terms of the copy of this judgment downloaded from the official website of this court. 8 18. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all legal formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) cm