7.7.2026 13 sb CRR 4499 of 2025 with CRAN 2 of 2026 Papia Mondal Sur @ Papia Mandal Sur @ Papia Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Dipanjan Dutt Mr. Surojit Saha …for the Petitioner Mr. Souvick Mitra …for the O.P. no. 2 Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP Mr. Imran Siddiqui …for the State Leave to correct the name of the court in the cause title of the application, is granted. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. case no. 277 of 2023, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled in the complaint are inter alia to the effect that on 28th January, 2023 at around 11-11.30 am, the accused no. 1 came to her residence accompanied with few unknown men carrying hammer, cutter etc. and started installing iron grill on the common passage and common rooms of the said premises. The defacto-complainant along with her two daughters were not informed about such activities. Thereafter, the petitioner and other accused persons had allegedly attacked the defacto-complainant and had pushed the defacto-complainant and touched her chest 2 in order to outrage her modesty and when the defacto- complainant restrained the unknown male persons, the said accused persons forcefully touched the defacto- complainant’s back portion and hip. The defacto- complainant fell down on the ground and sustained injury. On the basis of her complain, the instant proceeding has been initiated. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323/354/114 of the IPC against the petitioner and another accused namely, Saminul Islam. He further submits that the entire allegations under Section 354 IPC revolve around the other accused namely, Saminul Islam and three or four unknown accused persons, who were not identified during investigation. However, said Saminul Islam preferred a revisional application before this Court seeking quashment and this court while disposing of CRR 4809 of 2024, had been pleased to quash the proceeding qua the petitioner, Saminul Islam vide order dated 6th February, 2025. He further submits that the petitioner herein is a female accused and the allegation under Section 354/323/114 of the IPC against her does not arise. He further submits that petitioner is the sister-in-law of the defacto-complainant and she has been entangled in order to wreck vengeance. Therefore, further continuance of the impugned proceeding against the petitioner would be nothing but a mere abuse of process of the court. 3 Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the present petitioner is an FIR named accused and specific allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner in the complaint and also in the statement recorded during investigation along with the medical papers. Therefore, the present petitioner is not on the same footing with that of the accused, Saminul Islam and therefore, the petitioner should face trial to unearth the truth and for which, this is not a fit case where the proceeding can be quashed invoking this court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Learned counsel for the State referred some documents as annexures along with the instant application and has conceded the argument placed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties. On perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and other materials available in the record, it appears that over installing iron grill at the premises, one hot altercation took place in between the petitioner and the defacto- complainant, who are near relatives. Having gone through the materials placed in the case diary, it appears to me that no specific role has been attributed against any of the accused persons and the allegations against the present petitioner are omnibus in nature, on the basis of which there is hardly any chance of conviction of the petitioner, even if trial is allowed to continue. In fact, from the materials available in the case 4 diary, it has revealed that general allegations are levelled against all the known and unknown accused persons including the petitioner herein. Complainant alleged that all accused persons have committed the alleged offences. No specific or distinct allegation has been made against any of the accused including the petitioner herein and no specific role has been attributed in furtherance of the general allegations made against the accused persons. This simply leads to a situation wherefrom, it is not ascertainable, the exact role played by each accused in furtherance of offence. The allegations levelled at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes among near relatives over property dispute and do not warrant prosecution. Therefore, I find that further continuation of the impugned proceeding would be nothing but a mere abuse of process of the court. In view of above, CRR 4499 of 2025 along with CRAN 2 of 2026 are allowed. The impugned proceeding being G.R. case no. 277 of 2023, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah is hereby quashed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)