1 10.07.2026 Court No.34 Sl. No. 9 sg CRR 3804 of 2022 In the matter of: Raju Khearu …Petitioner. Mr. Subhas Ch.Saha Mr. D. N. Chatterjee …for the petitioner. Mr. Kallol Mondal Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee …for the State. 1. The revisional application has been filed for quashing of the proceeding being Ketugram Police Station Case No.122 of 2021 dated 20th March, 2021 G.R. Case No. 259/20211, charge sheet no. 137 of 2021 pending before Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Katwa, Purba Bardhman under Sections 341,325, 506,34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate representing petitioner that the entire allegations leveled against present petitioners are false and concocted and they are not connected with the present case and it has been filed after a delay of 186 days by filing an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC without giving any explanation . It is further submitted that the investigation culminated into filing of charge sheet and the petitioner has not received the entire documents under Section 207CrPC as no medical paper was handed over to the petitioner. Accordingly prays for quashing of the entire proceeding. 3. Learned prosecution on the other hand, raises vehement objection and submits that sufficient cogent materials exists against the present petitioner which can constitute the alleged offence as found in course of investigation and since charge sheet has been submitted on completion of investigation which prima facie establishes the charges ,the petitioners must face the trial. 4. Having heard both the learned counsel and on careful perusal of materials on record as well as case diary it appears that the complaint was lodged by the present defacto-complainant on 20th March, 2021 in respect of an incident 2 occurred on 1st March, 2021. The said complaint as annexed with the petition do not contain the last page and it was also not found available in the case Diary. The written complaint disclose that injured were treated medically and medical paper substantiate the same. He was further threatened. He intimated I.C. Ketugram as well as S.P Purba Bardhman but no action was taken and hence there was delay in lodging the complaint. 5. On close scrutiny of the materials available from the Case Diary an injury report was found as well as the statement of the eye witness. It is settled principles of law that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised in a very sparing manner and the inherent power do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. 6. It is no more Res Integra that in order to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice such power should be exercised and the parameters for exercise of such power, scope and ambit were described in the celebrated decisions of State of Harayana vs Bhajanlal 1992 AIR 604 . 7. Therefore, the content of the written complaint and the facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that the chargesheet has been submitted, this court do not find sufficient materials to suggest that evidence collected during investigation or the complaint fails to constitute an offence under which charge sheet has been submitted or it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 8. Therefore, order to test the veracity of the same to find out the truth it is incumbent upon the parties to face the trial before the learned court subject to the charge to be framed by the Learned Court. 9. Learned Court is also s directed to consider as to whether in terms of mandatory provision of code of criminal procedure the entire set of documents were handed over to the petitioner or not and to take steps in accordance with law. 3 10. In view of the above, this revisional application being CRR 3804 of 2022 stands disposed of with above direction. 11. Case diary be returned to the learned prosecutor. 12. Parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website Calcutta High Court. [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]