IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 2179 OF 2024 CRAN 3 OF 2025 ARITENDU DAS AND ANOTHER -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. For the Petitioners : Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta, Ld. Adv. Ms. Sofia Nesar, Ld. Adv. Mr. Santanu Sett, Ld. Adv. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Sukanta Das, Ld. Adv. Mr. A. Bera Maiti, Ld. Adv. For the State : Mr. Kallol Mondal. Ld. P.P. Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee, Ld. Adv. Mr. Neel Chakraborty, Ld. Adv. Reserved on : 15.09.2026 Pronounced on : 28.09.2026 UDAY KUMAR, J.: – 1. The invocation of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to short-circuit a criminal prosecution at the threshold is an extraordinary remedy that must be exercised with utmost caution, circumspection, and restraint. It is a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence that criminal proceedings ought not to be trifled with lightly at the intermediate stage of a charge sheet, particularly when a competent investigating agency has, after collecting material and recording statements, placed a police 2 CRR 2179 OF 2024 report before the jurisdictional court disclosing a prima facie case. In the present revisional application, the petitioners have invoked this jurisdiction seeking the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Pingla Police Station Case No. 441 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4128 of 2022, now pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur. 2. To appreciate the controversy at hand, the foundational matrix requires a brief recounting. The prosecution case was set into motion upon a written complaint lodged on December 9, 2022, by opposite party No. 2, a senior citizen aged about 75 years, alleging that on the preceding evening at around 9:00 PM, while he was walking towards Maligram Bazar to purchase medicines, a blue-coloured four-wheeler vehicle approached him with glaring headlights. According to the complaint, when he raised his hand to signal the vehicle to stop or lower its lights, the petitioners Aritendu Das and his wife Dipanwita Pal Das alighted from the vehicle, hurled filthy abuses, and petitioner No. 1 assaulted him with a car jack with the intent to commit murder, causing bodily injury before fleeing the spot. Upon registration of the FIR under Sections 341/323/325/307/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared a rough sketch map, collected the injury report from Pingla Rural Hospital issued by Dr. Atanu Sahoo, and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 341/323/307/506/34 IPC against both petitioners, dropping the charges under Sections 325 and 3 CRR 2179 OF 2024 379 IPC. Subsequently, on February 2, 2023, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur, perused the police report and case diary materials, formed a subjective satisfaction that a prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of the offenses, and issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners who were shown as absconding. 3. Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the entire criminal proceeding is a mala fide, malicious, and an engineered counter-blast designed purely to exert undue pressure upon the petitioners and their elderly parents with a view to forcing them to abandon their pending civil litigation, specifically Title Suit No. 647 of 2021. 4. To substantiate this assertion, the learned counsel for the petitioners anchored their defense upon a robust plea of alibi, seeking to demonstrate through digital FasTag transaction records originating from the Indian Highway Management Company Limited that the petitioners' vehicle was physically crossing the Jaladhulagori Toll Plaza at 9:59 PM on December 8, 2022, a geographic point situated more than 85 kilometers away from Maligram Bazar, thereby rendering their alleged presence at the scene of the crime at 9:00 PM an absolute physical impossibility. 5. It was further pointed out that the medical report issued by Pingla Rural Hospital explicitly records that no external injury was observed on the person of the complainant, exposing the mechanical and 4 CRR 2179 OF 2024 arbitrary invocation of the heinous offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Finally, it was urged that the continuation of a prosecution plagued by such structural impossibilities and medical contradictions constitutes an egregious abuse of the process of the court, warranting immediate interdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the State and the private opposite party stoutly resisted the prayer for quashing, contending that the impugned criminal proceeding stands on a sound foundational footing. It was submitted that the investigating agency has meticulously discharged its statutory duties by visiting the place of occurrence, drawing up a rough sketch map, recording the incriminatory statements of independent witnesses under Section 161 of the Code, and procuring the medical injury report, the collective weight of which unmistakably discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that the petitioners' reliance on digital toll plaza logs, travel-time calculations, and the plea of alibi essentially constitute disputed questions of fact that cannot be weighed, evaluated, or accepted as gospel truth within the narrow confines of a revisional jurisdiction, but must instead be subjected to the crucible of cross-examination during a full-fledged trial. Furthermore, it was asserted that the mere pendency of civil litigation or a title suit between the parties does not operate as an automatic bar to criminal prosecution, as civil and criminal remedies can co-exist when cognizable allegations are made out, leaving the 5 CRR 2179 OF 2024 ultimate determination of truth or falsity exclusively to the domain of the trial court. 9. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the rival submissions, the foundational records, and the established parameters of law, the core questions that fall for determination in the present revisional application are: Firstly, Whether a plea of alibi backed by digital records can be evaluated by this Court to quash a charge sheet disclosing a prima facie case, or whether it constitutes a disputed question of fact to be left for trial; and Secondly, Whether the mere pendency of civil litigation and the alleged lack of medical corroboration render the criminal prosecution an abuse of process warranting interference at the threshold. 10. Addressing the first question regarding the plea of alibi, it is a well- entrenched proposition of criminal jurisprudence that alibi is a plea of fact that must be strictly proved by the accused through positive, cogent, unimpeachable, and substantive evidence during the course of a trial. Digital transaction logs, toll plaza receipts, and distance-time calculations, howsoever persuasive they may appear at first blush, cannot be accepted as gospel truth or be evaluated on their face value in a revisional proceeding without formal proof, exhibition of documents, and rigorous testing through cross-examination under the Indian Evidence Act. A constitutional court exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot embark upon a mini-trial or a factual 6 CRR 2179 OF 2024 inquiry to weigh and sift documentary alibis at the pre-trial stage, as doing so would amount to usurping of the exclusive domain of the trial court. 11. In State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Pastor P. Raju [(2006) 6 SCC 728], the Apex Court authoritatively held that the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code to quash a criminal proceeding should be constrained and restricted to cases where the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the commission of an offense, explicitly ruling that a plea of alibi, being a question of fact, is required to be proved during the trial and cannot form the basis for quashing a charge sheet at the threshold. This view was further reinforced in Rajesh Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. [(2012) 4 SCC 217], where the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that evaluation of documentary defence materials and pleas concerning the physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the scene of the crime are matters exclusively within the domain of the trial court, and a constitutional court cannot embark upon an inquiry into the reliability or credibility of an alibi at the stage of taking cognizance or upon submission of a charge sheet. Similarly, in Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [(2021) 15 SCC 720], the Apex Court underscored that if the materials collected by the investigating agency disclose a prima facie case, the High Court should be slow to interfere with criminal proceedings, because a defence of alibi necessarily requires strict proof through evidence which cannot be tested in a summary quashing petition. Applying these authoritative principles to the facts of 7 CRR 2179 OF 2024 the present case, the petitioners' reliance on digital FasTag records to establish an alibi cannot be examined as a ground for quashing. The charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, supported by witness statements and medical records, clearly crosses the threshold of a prima facie case. Consequently, the plea of alibi remains a disputed question of fact that must be tested through cross-examination during the trial, and it cannot justify the interdiction of the criminal proceeding under Section 482 of the Code. Accordingly, the first question for determination is answered in the negative, against the petitioners. 12. Progressing to the second question, the contention regarding the pendency of prior civil litigation does not advance the petitioners' case for quashing. It is trite law that civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can co-exist independently. The mere existence of a title suit or property dispute between neighbours does not automatically brand a criminal complaint as a malicious fabrication or an absolute nullity. While civil courts adjudicate upon rights, title, and possession, criminal courts examine penal culpability and public wrongs. Whether a criminal complaint is a retaliatory device born out of civil animosity or represents a genuine grievance involving physical assault is a matter that can only be unlocked through oral and documentary evidence adduced during a trial, as underscored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2022) 14 SCC 572], wherein it was reiterated that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court does not conduct a mini-trial. If the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet, taken at their face value, 8 CRR 2179 OF 2024 prima facie disclose the ingredients of an offense, a plea that the complaint is a counter-blast to civil litigation must be left for determination during trial. Furthermore, as cautioned by the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, keeping in mind that disputed questions of fact and the evaluation of evidence cannot be undertaken in a petition for quashing. 13. Finally, addressing the challenge concerning the medical evidence and the invocation of Section 307 IPC, a perusal of the case diary and the charge sheet reveals that the investigating officer recorded the statements of independent witnesses and collected the injury report from the hospital, which considered together, crosses the low threshold of prima facie satisfaction required for taking cognizance of the offenses. The adequacy, weight, or reliability of the medical report vis-à-vis the charges invoked are matters for evaluation when charges are framed or during the trial proper, and not for summary termination of proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. To hold otherwise would mean transforming the High Court into a trial court, a course of action explicitly deprecated by the Apex Court in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab & Ors. [(2020) 3 SCC 317], wherein it was held that evaluation of the merits of the materials collected during investigation is not permissible at the stage of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the court cannot evaluate whether the evidence is sufficient to convict the 9 CRR 2179 OF 2024 accused. The second question for determination is also answered in the negative, against the petitioners. 14. The legal findings emerging from the discussion on facts and law are systematically structured and concluded as follows: i. The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and with utmost circumspection, and it cannot be invoked to stifle a criminal prosecution at the charge sheet stage when the police report and witness statements disclose a prima facie case, as reaffirmed in Bhajan Lal (supra). ii. Mere tracking of a vehicle at a toll plaza cannot be sufficient in law to draw an unshakeable presumption as to the alibi of the petitioners at the threshold, particularly without establishing the crucial factual matrix as to whether the petitioners were actually riding inside the vehicle at the relevant time, and crucially, without affording the opposite parties an opportunity of testing such digital documents through cross-examination. A plea of alibi constitutes a disputed question of fact that requires strict proof through substantive evidence during trial and cannot be evaluated or accepted in a summary quashing proceeding. iii. The mere pendency of civil litigation or prior title disputes between the parties does not operate as an automatic bar to criminal prosecution, as civil and criminal remedies can co-exist when cognizable allegations are made out, leaving the truth or 10 CRR 2179 OF 2024 falsity of the complaint to be adjudicated exclusively by the trial court. iv. The adequacy, weight, or reliability of medical evidence and the specific penal provisions invoked, such as Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, are matters for appraisal during the framing of charges or at the trial proper, rendering summary interdiction unwarranted. 15. In light of the aforesaid detailed discussions and settled legal principles, this Court is of the unhesitating opinion that the contentions raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact that are incapable of being resolved in a summary proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The charge sheet filed by the investigating agency discloses a sufficient prima facie case, and the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur committed no illegality or jurisdictional error in taking cognizance of the offenses. 16. Accordingly, the criminal revisional application being C.R.R. No. 2179 of 2024 is hereby dismissed. 17. Connected pending application being CRAN 3 of 2025 is also disposed of accordingly. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. The Learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment. 11 CRR 2179 OF 2024 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Records be transmitted immediately to the Trial Court for information and necessary compliance. 21. Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State. 22. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)