1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. No. 4065 of 2024 With CRAN 2 of 2026 Soumali Das @ Somali Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the Petitioners : Ms. Swarnali Saha Mr. Arindam Ganguly For the State : Mr. Kallol Mondal, ld. P.P. Mr. Imran Siddiqui Heard on : 28.09.2026 Judgment on : 28.09.2026 Uploaded on : 29.09.2026 (In Court) Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.:- 1. The petitioner, being the accused no. 1, sister-in-law of the accused no. 2, filed this revisional application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking 2 quashing of proceedings initiated in G.R. Case no. 10581 of 2021 arising out of the Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 344/21 dated 29th November, 2021 under Sections 354 / 506 / 509 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to Charge Sheet No. 56/22 dated 31st March, 2022 under Sections 354 / 354D / 506 / 509 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29th November, 2021, the victim lodged a written complaint at Narayanpur P.S., inter alia, alleging that after the lockdown period in the year 2020, the victim came in contact with the accused No. 2 for the purpose of having her photography and videography done for her YouTube channel. Subsequently, the accused started making indecent proposals by touching her inappropriately. The complainant decided not to make further YouTube blogs with the accused No. 2, however, on 29th November, 2021, the accused no. 2, along with his sister-in-law, came in front of the main gate of the residential area of the victim and allegedly used filthy and abusive languages and threatened her with dire consequences. On the basis of such complaint, the Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 344/21 dated 29th November, 2021 under Sections 354 / 506 / 509 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the accused persons. 3 3. After culmination of investigation, the Charge Sheet No. 56/22 dated 31st March, 2022 under Sections 354 / 354D / 506 / 509 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed against the accused persons including the present petitioner. The materials collected during investigation established prima facie case against both the accused persons. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation is out and out false and frivolous. She was not involved in the alleged offence in any manner. The F.I.R. did not disclose the cognizable offence against the present petitioner and there is no specific allegation against present petitioner and whatever allegations have been made against the petitioner, is false, vague, general and frivolous in nature and for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law the proceeding liable to be quashed. 5. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 nor has any accommodation been sought. 6. Per contra, learned advocate representing the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein and produces the memo of evidence, the case diary and draws the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to Sections 180 and 183 of the 4 BNSS, 2023 and submits that there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner. It was stated that the present petitioner was actively involved in the alleged offence. Therefore, prayer for quashing of such proceedings is liable to be rejected and dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties, and having gone through the materials on record including the memo of evidence, the case diary, the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to Sections 182 and 183 of the BNSS, 2023 of the witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that sufficient materials are available to establish a prima facie case against the present petitioner. Accordingly, this Court does not find any sufficient reasons or grounds to quash the proceedings being G.R. Case no. 10581 of 2021 arising out of the Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 344/21 dated 29th November, 2021 under Sections 354 / 506 / 509 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 8. Furthermore, the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. It would not be justified on the part of the Court to embark upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise and hence, prayer for quashing of the proceedings is thus considered and rejected. 5 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others1 has also laid down the several guidelines to be followed by the court while exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India out of those guidelines few are as under:- “i) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). ii) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; iii) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; iv) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court; v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; vii) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The Court is not required to consider on merits 1 (2021) SCC Online SC 315 6 whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the Court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;” 10. In the light of aforesaid discussion and also in view of the guidelines laid down by the apex court, the case of the petitioner is devoid of any merit. Consequently, I do not find any reason to quash the proceedings. 11. With the above observations, CRR 4065 of 2024 stands dismissed. 12. Consequently, connected applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 13. CD, if any, be returned. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 15. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned Court below for information. 16. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. The concerned Department is directed to supply urgent certified Photostat copy of this judgment to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) AN