In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Present: The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay CRR 226 of 2026 Sri. Deepak Kumar Sah versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the petitioner : Mr. Tapas Paul : Mr. Pritam Roy : Ms. Silpi Basu Heard On : 03.07.2026 Judgment On : 03.07.2026 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1. In this criminal revision, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings pertaining to the Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No. 647 of 2025, dated July 04, 2025, under Section 329(3), 324(2), 303(2), 351(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the petitioner pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalpaiguri. 2. The petitioner’s grievance is that a complaint against him of forceful dispossession from property, vandalism and criminal intimidation lodged by the opposite party No. 2/the de facto complainant is only misconceived and baseless. 3. The petitioner has submitted that in the capacity of the Chief Manager and Authorized Officer of Punjab National Bank, ARMB, Circle Sastra, United Bank Building, 2nd Floor, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri has taken steps in accordance with the SARFAESI Act for recovery of khas possession of the property, allegedly given in rent earlier to the de facto complainant. It is submitted that, one Smt. Kalyani Das availed financial assistance of Rs. 23,72,000/- for her business in the year 2016 from Punjab National Bank, her husband being the guarantor of the said loan facility on his personal capacity and created mortgage of his unencumbered immovable property as security of the said loan in favour of Punjab National Bank. That property is concerned in the instant case, in which the de facto complainant has alleged vandalism created by the present petitioner. 4. Due to non-payment of loan, the loan account of the owner of the property was classified as non-performing asset on April 26, 2023 as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, the Authorized Officer of the Punjab National Bank, New Jalpaiguri, Circle Officer, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri started proceeding to recover the secure date in exercise of power conferred under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Statutory notices were issued with the request for repayment of the amount within the statutory period to the borrower and the guarantor. Since despite receipt of the notices, the borrower or the guarantor did not respond, accordingly, the Authorized Officer of the Punjab National Bank, New Jalpaiguri Circle, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri took symbolic possession of the mortgaged immovable property on September 05, 2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 5. By allowing an application of the said secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Court directed for taking over the physical possession of the property vide order dated January 20, 2025. The Court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Siliguri Police Commissionerate to provide assistance for taking over physical possession of the property as well as maintenance of law and order. Page 3 of 5 The petitioner says that on July 03, 2025, physical possession of the secured asset as above was taken over by him. 6. According to the petitioner, the tenancy agreement of the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2 is only a false and manufactured document. Further, the petitioner has also raised objection as regards a title suit being filed by the opposite party No. 2 bearing No. TS 152 of 2025 challenging taking physical possession of the property, for the reason that as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of a matter which is maintainable under the said statute before a Debt Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal. According to the petitioner, the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2 has suppressed all the relevant material background facts while filing the title suit thereby misled the Court. Furthermore, it is submitted that, so far as the present complaint against the petitioner is concerned, he having acted pursuant to the provisions of the statute and as a statutorily empowered office, the entire allegations against the petitioner is only misconceived and unsustainable. It is alleged that, on the contrary, the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2 has tried to obstruct following due process of law in case of taking over the secured asset by the Bank. For all the reasons as above, the complaint dated July 04, 2025 and the entire proceeding pursuant thereto is said to be not maintainable in the eye of law and the petitioner has sought for quashing and/or setting aside of the same in the instant revision. 7. On perusal of the FIR filed by the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2 dated July 04, 2025, it appears that the de facto complainant has stated in the FIR about his tenancy over the concerned property which is owned by the person Sri Anjan Kumar Das. The petitioner has not suppressed his knowledge about the property being kept in mortgage with Punjab National Bank and receipt of notice under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of possession of the concerned property. 8. The petitioner’s case is that an injunction of the Civil Court stands in his favour restraining his eviction from the property. His further allegation is that the petitioner has effected forceful dispossession of him from the property in violation of the injunction order of the Court. Allegations of ransacking of the residence, vandalizing of the furniture and valuable articles and physical and verbal abuse, intimidation and threat have been made against the present petitioner. 9. Hence, the admittedly, the petitioner has been acting in furtherance of the due process under the law and in terms of the order of the Trial Court for recovery of the vacant possession of the said secured property, due to non-payment of the loan by the owner thereof. Further it is noticeable that, violation of injunction order passed by the Civil Court, if any, by the present petitioner is to be remedied by way of further proceedings in accordance with law brought before the learned Civil Court. The action taken by the petitioner is connected with his official duty and he being a public servant has been acting in the course of his official duty. The criminal case filed against the petitioner is not substantiated as maintainable for the reason as above. 10. So far as ingredients of offence as alleged against the petitioner, it appears that, none of the same are available against him when he has been discharging his statutory duty following the due process of law. 11. Considering all as above, the Court finds that allegations brought in against the petitioner in the FIR, does not make out a cognizable case against him in order to proceed into an investigation or a trial. 12. On the contrary, any further proceeding pursuant to the FIR as above against the petitioner shall amount to gross abuse of the process of the Court, which is untenable in the eye of law. Considering all as above, the Court finds that the instant criminal proceeding in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No. 647 of 2025, dated July 04, 2025, under Section 329(3), 324(2), 303(2), 351(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the petitioner pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalpaiguri is not sustainable and shall amount to abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. 13. The instant criminal revision is thus allowed. The proceeding before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalpaiguri is quashed and set aside. 14. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)