11.9.2026 10 sb CRR 686 of 2026 Pranati Sen & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Sudip Chakraborty Ms. Eshita Dutta … for the Petitioners Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta Mr. Sreyash Kumar Singh …for the State In spite of service, opposite party no. 2 is not represented. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceeding being ACGR case no. 680 of 2023, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party no. 2 with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance upon the petitioners as a counter complaint, preferred a false first information report (in short FIR) against the petitioners on 11.2.2023. The allegations levelled in the FIR is that vehicle of Dr. Subhajit Sen bearing registration no. WB 08C 1100 dashed the son of the complainant on 11.2.2023 at about 3 P.M. It is alleged that the driver of the said vehicle had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner. When the opposite party no. 2 being mother of the victim of accident, protested for causing such accident, the petitioners herein physically assaulted her and had insulted her modesty by using filthy languages and 2 they also threatened the opposite party no. 2 with dire consequences. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 279/337/323/506/509 and 114 of the IPC Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are completely innocent of the offence as alleged. He further submits that upon a brief perusal of the FIR and also other materials relied by the prosecution, it would appear that the materials on record do not in any manner justify the charges under the offences alleged therein. He further submits that from the charge-sheet, it is clear that the prosecution only proposes to examine four witnesses including the Investigating officer. Upon plain reading of the name of the witnesses, it is clear that apart from the son of the opposite party no. 2, the opposite party no. 2 and the husband of the opposite party no. 2, no independent witness has made statement in support of the allegations levelled in the impugned proceeding, which itself is self-explanatory of a fraudulent proceeding to harass the petitioners. He further submits that the complainant’s son has several criminal antecedents. The proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners with mala fide motive and therefore, further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be mere abuse of process of the court. 3 Learned counsel for the State placing the case diary leaves the prayer made by the petitioner to the discretion of the court. From the charge-sheet, it appears that prosecution proposes to examine four witnesses out of which witness no. 4 is the Investigating officer. However, on a perusal of the statements of rest witnesses, it appears that the offences alleged against the petitioners have not been made out and they are hearsay in nature. The injury report also discloses that the complainant sustained injury due to assault by two persons and the history of the assault does not disclose the name of the assailants. From the aforesaid materials collected during investigation, I find that there is hardly any chance of conviction against any of the present petitioners with the available materials at the end of trial, even if a faked trial is allowed to continue. Except bald statement and casual reference of rash and negligent driving there is nothing to show in support of rashness or negligence. Even the witnesses did not mention, who was driving the vehicle. The allegations are therefore, general and omnibus and at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes, arising out of a road accident and does not warrant criminal prosecution. Therefore, further continuance of the impugned proceeding would not yield any fruitful result and would only prolong burden of courts, without the likelihood of a productive outcome. 4 In such view of the matter, CRR 686 of 2026 is allowed. The impugned proceeding being ACGR case no. 680 of 2023, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore is hereby quashed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)