15.07.2026 Court No.42 Item No. 27 D.Hira CRR 3407 of 2017 With CRAN 1 of 2017 (Old No. 4677 of 2017) In the matter of :- Sivam Singh 1. When this matter is called on for hearing, no one appears to represent either the petitioner or the opposite parties. No accommodation or prayer for adjournment has been moved from any quarter. 2. This criminal revisional application has remained pending on the files of this Court since the year 2017. The extreme lapse of time coupled with the persistent absence of the parties reflects a structural reluctancy to proceed with this litigation. The litigants have effectively abandoned their desire to agitate this matter before this Court. 3. It is a well-established principle that the court's calendar cannot be blocked indefinitely to suit the convenience of dormant litigants. Accordingly, I decline to adjourn this matter further and take it up for final disposal on the merits of the case, purely on the basis of the materials available on record. 4. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioner, Sivam Singh, praying for the quashing of the criminal proceedings in CGR Case No. 3885 of 2017, arising out of Bhowanipur Police Station Case No. 416 dated 15.09.2017, under Sections 353 2 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, presently pending adjudication before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. 5. The prosecution case stems from an incident where the petitioner allegedly obstructed public servants from discharging their official duties. The statutory framework of Section 353 of the IPC penalizes assault or criminal force used to deter a public servant from the discharge of their duty, read in conjunction with the abetment provisions under Section 114. 6. A perusal of the grounds articulated in the revisional petition reveals that the petitioner seeks to derail the prosecution on the following assertions: The petitioner contends that the present criminal case is a malicious counter-blast to a Miscellaneous Petition, being M.P. Case No. 51 of 2017, filed by his mother before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas. The said petition was filed against the local police administration, including the Deputy Commissioner of Police, alleging illegal detention, wrongful threats at the Alipore Police Station, and severe custodial torture. The petitioner further argues that the police wrongfully subjected him to duress to extract information regarding the whereabouts and activities of his father, Rakesh Singh. He maintains that his entire family has been systematically impleaded in a series of false, manufactured cases due to deep-seated political rivalry and vendetta. 3 7. In a proceeding under Section 482 of the CrPC, this Court is not required to step into the shoes of a trial judge and conduct a mini-trial to test the veracity of conflicting factual assertions. The jurisdiction is extraordinary and must be exercised only when the face of the record reveals a clear abuse of process or a manifest illegality that strikes at the root of the case. 8. A prima facie evaluation of the materials on record, including the First Information Report (FIR) and the allegations concerning the incident on 15.09.2017, shows that the formal ingredients required to constitute offences under Sections 353/114 of the IPC are sufficiently disclosed. The allegations outline specific overt acts of obstruction against public servants acting in their official capacity. 9. The petitioner’s defence is that the case is an act of police retaliation or a by-product of political hostility, presents a disputed question of fact. While these assertions are serious, they constitute defensive arguments that must be tested through the crucible of cross-examination during the trial, rather than being summarily accepted in a revisional jurisdiction. There is no foundational perversity or patent illegality in the order taking cognizance that justifies the extraordinary intervention of this Court at this stage. The matter requires a full adjudication by the trial court. 10. For the reasons discussed above, I am not convinced that a case has been made out to allow this revisional application at its threshold. 4 11. The criminal revisional application, being C.R.R. No. 3407 of 2017, stands dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Revisional Application along with CRAN 1 of 2017 (Old No. 4677 of 2017) are disposed of. 13. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. 14. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)