07.09.2026 Sl. No.19. Ct. No.237 Suman CRR 2742 of 2026 Chandrani Roy Sanfui @ Chandrani Safui and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr. Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Ms. Trisha Rakshit Ms. Rajashree Tah Ms. Aishwarya Datta Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty Ms. Sadia Parveen ..for the petitioners Mr. Abhinav Rakshit Mr. Sofiul Islam Mondal ..for O.P. No.2. Mr. Achin Jana Mr. Uttam Basak ..for the State The present revisional application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned proceedings in G.R. Case No. 6363 of 2023, arising out of Baruipur Police Station Case No. 1442 of 2023 dated 01.11.2023, registered under Sections 448/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas. It appears that Petitioner No. 1 is the daughter-in-law of Opposite Party No. 2, the de facto complainant. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother, respectively, of Petitioner No. 1; Petitioner No. 4 is her sister; and Petitioner No. 5 is her brother. Opposite Party No. 2, the de facto complainant, lodged a complaint before the Inspector-in-Charge, Baruipur Police Station, on 01.11.2023, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners, along with other accused persons, entered her house and physically assaulted her by pulling her hair and by inflicting fists and blows. It was further alleged that they attempted to strangulate her and removed cash amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and gold ornaments from an almirah. They allegedly demanded a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and threatened to kill her. On the basis of the said complaint, Baruipur Police Station Case No. 1442 of 2023 dated 01.11.2023 was registered under Sections 448/323/325/379/506/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate in the Court below on 30.11.2023 under Sections 448/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the present complaint was lodged as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioners under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is further submitted that a First Information Report was lodged by Petitioner No. 1 against Opposite Party No. 2 under Sections 498A/323/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is contended that the allegations contained in the complaint dated 01.11.2023 are wholly false and that the said complaint was instituted with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioners. It has also been argued that, although the alleged incident took place on 11.10.2023, the complaint was lodged only on 01.11.2023. Mr. Chattopadhyay further submits that, where a criminal proceeding has been initiated with a mala fide intention and as a 2 counterblast to an earlier proceeding, the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, Mr. Chattopadhyay has placed reliance upon the following judgments: 1. (2019) 14 SCC 643 (Anupriya Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh) 2. (2008) 16 SCC 763 (Eicher Tractor Limited v. Harihar Singh) 3. (2017) 13 SCC 369 (Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh) Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that, during the course of investigation, sufficient materials have been collected against the petitioners in support of the alleged commission of the offences. It is submitted that the injury report, as well as the statements of independent witnesses, corroborate the allegations made in the complaint. Accordingly, it is contended that this Court ought not to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at this stage. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant has also adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the State. This Court is of the view that the mere fact that a proceeding has been initiated as a counterblast, by itself, cannot constitute a ground for quashing the same. The allegations contained in the complaint, together with the materials collected during the course of investigation, are 3 required to be considered before a Court exercises its jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding. In the present case, it is found that the FIR was registered under Sections 448/323/325/379/506/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has already been filed under Sections 448/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It further appears that, immediately after the alleged incident on 11.10.2023, Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a complaint before the concerned police station, which was diarised as G.D. Entry No. 931 dated 11.10.2023. Reference to the said complaint has been made in the First Information Report dated 11.11.2023, which clearly demonstrates that there was no delay on the part of Opposite Party No. 2 in reporting the alleged incident. It further appears that Opposite Party No. 2 was medically examined and that the injury report forms part of the charge-sheet. It also appears that, in the course of investigation, statements of three witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, out of whom two may be regarded as independent witnesses. In view of the aforesaid materials, it cannot be said that the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed at this stage, particularly when the materials collected during investigation disclose sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners. The judgments relied upon by Mr. Chattopadhyay do not lay down the proposition that criminal proceedings are liable to 4 be quashed merely on the ground that they were initiated as a counterblast. On a consideration of the factual circumstances involved in the said cases, it is evident that the proceedings therein were quashed primarily because the allegations contained in the complaint/FIR did not disclose the commission of the alleged offences or were otherwise devoid of the requisite factual foundation. In Anupriya Pal (supra), a complaint case was instituted, pursuant to which the learned Magistrate issued process under Sections 420/504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court observed that the complaint did not disclose any specific allegation against four of the five accused persons. The principal allegation against the remaining accused was that, at the time of marriage, she had falsely represented that she had completed her MCA. Apart from the said allegation, no other substantive allegation was found in the FIR. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings. In Eicher Tractor Limited (supra), the Supreme Court also quashed the proceedings pursuant to a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the accused persons had stolen certain cheques, forged the same, and presented them before the bank. In Vineet Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court, upon consideration of the materials available on record, found that there was no substance in the allegations relating to the 5 commission of an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the accused persons. Thus, the judgments relied upon by Mr. Chattopadhyay do not advance the case of the petitioners or justify quashing of the criminal proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is well settled that criminal proceedings may be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where the allegations and the materials collected during investigation, even if taken at their face value, fail to disclose the commission of any offence or where the Investigating Agency has failed to collect any prosecutable material against the accused. As already noted hereinbefore, the materials collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, prima facie, disclose the commission of the alleged offences and provide sufficient material for the proceedings to continue against the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid discussion, CRR 2742 of 2026 is dismissed. This order, however, shall not preclude the petitioners from raising all such points as may be available to them in law at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. Needless to mention, this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. 6 The learned Magistrate in the Court below shall proceed with the case on the basis of the materials available on record, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 7