18.02.2026 Sl. No.5. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/2337/2025 with IA No: CRAN 2 of 2026 Soma Marik Vs. The State of West Bengal Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Mr. Apalak Basu, Ms. Aritra Chakrabarty, Ms. Uneaza Ali, Ms. Swarnali Gupta …for the petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld.A.P.P., Mr. Amanul Islam …for the State The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No.268 of 2018 arising out of Bidhannagar North Police Station Case No.54 of 2018 dated 18.04.2018 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. Petitioner submits that petitioner is an academician and Associate Professor of History. The allegation levelled in the FIR is that on 18.04.2018 at about 15:15 hours 50 to 6o members including the present petitioner of Moitri (Womens Organization) and other likeminded organization assembled in front of Jalasampad Bhawan, Salt Lake and started agitating over the issue of certain recent incidents and were serving leaflets to the common people and pedestrians, blocking the public road and thereby they were also creating disturbance to the traffic and pedestrians. It was further alleged in the FIR that the on duty police officers were persuading the agitators to withdraw from that place and the agitators were also asked for production of valid permission but they failed to produce any such document in support of their demonstration. 2 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the FIR and the materials collected during investigation makes it abundantly clear that no specific overt act has been attributed against the present petitioner. The allegations are vague, generalized and framed in an omnibus manner without disclosing the precise nature of the petitioner’s involvement with the alleged offence. Therefore, such allegation unsupported by substantive evidence can hardly makes out, even prima facie about petitioner’s involvement with the alleged offence. Therefore, continuance of the proceeding any further under the alleged offence of Sections 143/145/186/188/506/34 IPC against the petitioner would be mere abuse of the process of the Court since the ingredients of the alleged offence has not been made out against the petitioner during investigation. Therefore, he has prayed for quashing of the impugned proceeding qua the petitioner. Mr. Madhusudan Sur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the Case Diary and opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. I have gone through the materials in the Case Diary including the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the contents of charge-sheet. Having gone through the materials placed before me, I find that in the entire FIR no specific role has been attributed against the petitioner. FIR itself states that 50/60 persons assembled there and the role of the said sixty accused persons have been described as “few of the agitators”, “all the agitators”, “rest of the agitators”. It is not the case of the State that petitioner has any criminal antecedent. The allegations levelled in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation, even if are taken 3 at their face value, do not constitute any overt act of the present petitioner in the commission of alleged offence. When any of the participatory role of the petitioner in committing offence is not disclosed and even after investigation, nothing incriminating has surfaced against the petitioner herein, what purpose would be served in continuing criminal proceeding against the petitioner. In Sharif Ahmed Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC online SC 726, Supreme Court has clearly laid down the ratio that the investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the charge-sheet, so that the Court can clearly understand, which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available in the file. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the charge sheet for each of the accused person. As I have stated above that in the instant case charge sheet submitted against present petitioner has demonstrated complete non- compliance of said law. By just naming the petitioner in the FIR and the charge sheet, offence cannot said to have been committed by her. In Haji Iqbal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2023) 20 SCC 209, Supreme Court is of clear view that if the FIR does not disclose anything against the petitioner and even at the end of the investigation, if nothing incriminating surfaced against the petitioner, then the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, I am of the firm view that Clause (3) and (5) of Para 102 of the case of State of Haryana &. Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors, reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 clearly attracts in this case in respect of present petitioner which states proceeding can be quashed:- 4 “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.” “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.” In such view of the matter, CRR 2337 of 2025 is allowed. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case N.268 of 2018 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar is hereby quashed qua the petitioner, Soma Marik. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )