13.07.2026 Item no.A67 Ct. No.237 AKG C.R.R. 2300 of 2026 Pasupati Jana & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Dinesh Pani, Ms. Sulagna Sen ……for the Petitioners By filing the present revisional application, the petitioners seek quashing of Charge-sheet No. 229/24 dated July 31, 2024, submitted under Sections 341, 342, 365, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The aforesaid criminal proceeding against the petitioners was initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by opposite party no. 2 on April 1, 2024. The petitioners were arraigned therein as accused nos. 1, 2 and 3. The complainant alleged that on March 24, 2024 (Sunday), at about 6:30 hours, while he was present at Chandipur Market, the petitioners, along with some other accused persons, tied his mouth, hands and legs and forcibly took him to a nearby oil mill belonging to accused no. 4. Thereafter, they called 8 to 10 other persons. Subsequently, they untied him and compelled him to put his left thumb impression (LTI) on a blank stamp paper of ₹100 denomination. They allegedly threatened to kill him 2 if he refused to affix his LTI. When the complainant declined to do so, accused nos. 1 and 4 allegedly attempted to strangulate him, while accused nos. 2 and 3 assaulted him by kicking and punching him on his chest and stomach. Thereafter, all the accused persons allegedly assaulted him mercilessly, causing him to lose consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, he returned home with great difficulty. On the following day, he was admitted to the emergency department of the local hospital. Upon completion of the investigation, the aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed on the ground that, whereas the FIR records the date of occurrence as "March 24, 2024 (Sunday)", the charge- sheet mentions the date of occurrence as March 23, 2024. It is further submitted that although the allegations in the complaint principally relate to accused no. 4, only three persons were named as accused in the FIR, and there was no accused no. 4 therein. It is also contended that the charge-sheet does not make any reference to accused no. 4. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet does not specify the place of occurrence. 3 Learned Advocate for the petitioners further submits that the complainant was, in fact, gheraoed at Chandipur Market and was subsequently rescued by personnel of Chandipur Police Station and taken to the said police station. According to the petitioners, the CCTV footage of the police station recorded on the relevant date would substantiate the said facts. Upon hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, I am not inclined to quash the charge-sheet on any of the grounds urged before me. The first contention relates to the discrepancy in the dates of occurrence mentioned in the FIR and the charge- sheet. It is true that the FIR mentions the date of occurrence as March 24, 2024 (Sunday), whereas the charge-sheet records the date of occurrence as March 23, 2024. Thus, there is an apparent discrepancy between the FIR and the charge-sheet regarding the date of occurrence. However, such discrepancy, by itself, does not furnish a ground for quashing the criminal proceeding. Whether the occurrence took place on March 23, 2024 or March 24, 2024 is a matter of evidence to be determined at trial. Unless such discrepancy goes to the root of the prosecution case or causes prejudice to the accused, it cannot be made a basis for quashing the charge-sheet at the threshold. 4 The second contention pertains to accused no. 4. It is true that only three persons were named as accused in the FIR and that there was no accused no. 4 therein. The charge-sheet, however, has been submitted only against the persons named in the FIR, attributing specific overt acts to each of them in relation to the commission of the alleged offences. In my considered view, the omission to refer to accused no. 4 in the FIR is of no consequence, inasmuch as, upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted only against the accused persons named in the FIR. I also find no merit in the submission that the charge- sheet does not specify the place of occurrence. A perusal of the charge-sheet clearly reveals that the place of occurrence has been mentioned as Chandipur Market. The final contention relates to the production of the CCTV footage of Chandipur Police Station. This Court is of the considered view that there is no scope for taking such material into consideration at this stage. While exercising jurisdiction to consider a prayer for quashing of a charge- sheet, the Court ordinarily ought not to examine the defence version or evaluate defence materials, particularly where such defence can only be established upon appreciation of evidence during trial. 5 It is not the case of the petitioners that no incident whatsoever occurred at Chandipur Market on March 23, 2024. On the contrary, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that the complainant was gheraoed at Chandipur Market and was thereafter rescued by the police. These are disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon during the course of the trial on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether the materials collected during the investigation disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. The charge-sheet cites as many as nine prosecution witnesses, including the medical officer. The materials collected during the course of the investigation, prima facie, disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners. In such circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned charge-sheet. Accordingly, CRR 2300 of 2026 stands dismissed. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.)