21.09.2026 SL No. 39 Court No. 30 Rohan IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CRR 2833 of 2024 With I.A. No.: CRAN 1 of 2025 I.A. No.: CRAN 4 of 2025 I.A. No.: CRAN 5 of 2026 Namrata Kathotia & Anr. Versus State of West Bengal & Anr. Ms. Anju Manot Ms. Anusua Das … for the Petitioners Mr. Debabrata Roy Ms. R. K. Khandelwal Ms. Sarbani Mukhopadhyay … for the Opposite Party 1. Parties are present before the Court and learned counsel for the opposite party/complainant submits that he has no objection if the petitioner’s prayer for quashing of CN/527/2023 pending before the learned 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed. 2. Mr. Roy, learned advocate for the opposite party, very fairly has placed an order of the Coordinate Bench dated 28th July, 2023 passed in CRR 2747 of 2023, wherein the Coordinate Bench has been pleased to quash the proceedings in respect of one Swati Kathotia, who is also named as an accused in the application. It is 2 stated that the said Swati Kathotia and the petitioners herein, stand on the same footing and as such, this Court may pass necessary orders. 3. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the petition of complaint filed before the learned Trial Court, it appears that the present petitioners are accused Nos. 4 and 6 before the learned Trial Court and paragraph 6 in the petition of complaint is as follows: “That after the expiry of stipulated time period when complainant contacted the accused persons no. 1 and 2 enquiring for the repayment of the above accommodation loan at that time the accused persons no. 4, 5, 6 namely Namrata Khatotia, Swati Khatotia and Vaibhav Khatotia intimated to the complainant that the accused person nos. 2 and 3 are on a business trip abroad and will be returning within a year and the accused company is presently running a lot of projects and making high profits in each project and requested for a years’ time assuring that the complainant company would soon be receiving the accommodation loan along with the interest due thereon shortly. Believing upon the gesture and posture of the accused persons the complainant company gave some time to the accused persons.” 4. It appears from the said statement made at paragraph 6 that the only allegation against the petitioners is that they had allegedly stated to the complainant that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are on a business trip abroad and shall be returning within a year. As such, there is no prima facie evidence in respect of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein, who did not participate in the said transaction in any manner whatsoever. 3 5. In State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) 335, the Supreme Court held:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously 4 instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 6. The present case is thus clearly covered by the guidelines in State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal (Supra) (Para 102). 7. CRR 2833 of 2024 is allowed. 8. The proceeding being CN/527/2023 pending before the learned 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners namely Namrata Kathotia and Vaibhav Kathotia. 9. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 11. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance. 12. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)