01.09.2026 Sl.No. 11 Ct. 39 Amalranjan IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRR 3350 of 2022 Swapan Mondal and anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal and anr. Mr. Ujjal Ray Sk. Abdur Rahim……. for the petitioners Mr. Ranjan Chakraborti Mr. Abhijit Singh……………for the State 1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the two accused persons/petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the proceeding being GR case no. 1117 of 2021 arising out of Pandua Police Station Case No. 211 of 2021, dated 30.05.2021, under Sections 382/411/34 of the IPC pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Court, Hooghly (Sadar). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant, i.e., Santanu Das, lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that on 29.05.2021 at about 18.30 hours he, along with his driver Sandip Santra, was proceeding towards Chandannagar Chowdhury Bagan from Jorura by his car. When they reached near Chandannagar flyover, two women waved to stop him and requested for a lift to Pandua. Thereafter, the defacto-complainant picked up them and proceeded 2 towards Pandua. During the journey, the defacto- complainant came to know their names, Priyanka Saha and Rakhi Mondal, of Boichi, Pandua. At about 19.30 hours, the complainant dropped them at their house, when one male person came out from the house and forcefully took away the complainant’s mobile phone, diamond ring, ATM Card and cash of Rs. 12,000/- and driving license, threatening to kill him. 3. On the basis of a complaint, Pandua Police Station Case no. 211/2021 dated 30.05.2021 was registered. Subsequently, after culmination of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the three accused persons being Chargesheet no. 205/2021 dated 30.06.2021 under Sections 382/411/34 IPC including the present petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the entire case is false, concocted, and the allegations made against the petitioners are the outcome of the cock-and-bull story with mala fide intention. Although the de facto complainant and the petitioner no. 2 were previously acquainted with each other, the same was suppressed, and out of previous grudge, this case has been falsely initiated against the present petitioners. The whole allegation is out and out false and frivolous. 5. It is further submitted that Petitioner no.2 has actually filed a complaint case against the de facto complainant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 3 363/376D of the Indian Penal Code by filing a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing of the proceeding to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 6. Alternatively, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners also submits that liberty may be given to the petitioners so that they may file an application praying for discharge from the case as the charge has not yet been framed in the present case. 7. Learned counsel representing the State produces the case diary as well as memo of evidence and submits that there is sufficient material to substantiate a prima facie case against the petitioners. Learned counsel further draws the attention of the court that the FIR was registered against the de-facto complainant on the basis of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The said complaint against the de facto complainant was the counterblast of the present case; as such, the application is liable to be dismissed. 8. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 at the time of call. No accommodation was sought for. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties, this court would not like to enter into the merits of the present case, when there is an alternative prayer. 4 There is a legal provision available to the petitioners to pray for discharge before the Trial Court before framing of charges; otherwise, the petitioners would lose one forum to ventilate their grievances for discharge from the instant case. 10. Consequently, the petitioners’ alternative prayer is considered and allowed. The petitioners shall be at liberty to ventilate their grievance for discharge before the learned Court below by filing appropriate application in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate shall decide the application, if filed, independently and on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations whatsoever made hereinabove. 11. With the above observations, CRR 3350 of 2022 is, thus, disposed of. 12. Consequently, the connected applications, if any, are, thus, disposed of. 13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 14. Let the order be communicated to the Ld. Court below for information. 15. All parties shall act in terms of the copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. 16. Concerned Department is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. )