IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: - Hon’ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das). CRR 3386 of 2023 Mala Mondal Khan & Ors Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta. Ms. Sofia Nesar, Mr. Santanu Sett, Mr. Sarodindu Patra, For the State : Mr. Rajdeep Biswas, Mr. Sreyash Kumar Singh, Heard On : 30-09-2026 Judgment on : 30-09-2026 Uploaded On : 07-10-2026 Chaitali Chatterjee(Das), J.:- 1. This revisional application has been field for quashing of the entire proceeding in connection with Ghatal Police Station Case No.454 of 2022 under Sections 341/323/379/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the petitioner no.1 has lost her husband, who was bed ridden for about 12 years for the remaining period in “Coma” and she had to suffer long medical and physical treatment and she had two sons including the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are dependents on petitioner no.1. 3. The tragic life of the petitioner no.1 was broadcasted in one episode of “Didi No.1” of “ZEE BANGLA” channel and after such broadcast, opposite party no.2 along with others contacted with her and intended to make a biopic over her life. Relying such representation, she intended to proceed with such proposal and accordingly, she arranged for finalisation for such production as it was portrayed by the opposite party and she was facing economic crisis. The petitioner no.1 used all her savings and requested the opposite party no.2, who appeared the completion of project and amount to return for her respective interest thereupon. In this manner, she handed over an amount of Rs.38, 50,000/- in favour of the opposite party no.2. 4. Despite assurances given to the present petitioner by the opposite party no.2 she was induced to pay amount Rs.38,50,000/-, lastly, the petitioner no.1 found that the project has not even started after lapse of several years. Subsequently when public meeting was arranged showing amount taken by the opposite party no.2, he also agreed to repay the same. Even after such when the opposite party no.2 did not return the said money and threatened the present petitioner with the dire consequences, she had to lodge complaint before the Ghatal P.S. Case No.409 of 2021 dated 8.11.2021 under Sections 406/420/34 of the IPC against the respondent no.2 herein and he was arrested and released on bail. After releasing from bail, the opposite party no.2 started threatening the present petitioner no.1 to withdraw the aforesaid police case and on her denial she was abused with un-parliamentary languages. The opposite party no.2 also intended to malign her character and also threatened the petitioner in the false case. 5. Subsequently, opposite party no.2 lodged a complaint before the Goaltore P.S. Case No.96 of the 2022 dated 9.4.2022 under Sections 341/323/325/379/ 308/ 354/ 34 of the IPC against the petitioners. The said case was initiated on the basis of an application filed under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by opposite party no.2 after a considerable delay. The learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind mechanically directed the concerned Police Station to initiate the FIR. The present petitioner prays for anticipatory bail and finally got such order and subsequent thereto, the opposite party no.2 lodged further complaint before the Ghatal P.S. being case No.454 of 2022 under Sections 341/ 323/ 379/ 354/ 506/ 34 of the IPC now pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. This revisional application has been filed for quashing of the said proceeding. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioner that the subsequent complaints are nothing but counterblast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner no.1 against the opposite party no.2, who has himself appropriated huge amount of more than Rs.38, 00,000/- with false assurance. More so, in connection with the proceeding lodged by the present petitioner against the opposite party no.2, the charge-sheet has been submitted on conclusion of the investigation and the Learned Court has framed the charge and witness action to be started. It is, therefore, the specific contention that the present petitioner no.1 being the widow of Md. Ali Khan throughout suffered physically and mentally and the same broadcasted in the Television channel and this entire allegation levelled against her has caused further prejudice. Not only that she has been implicated with false allegation maliciously to wreak vengeance which are apparently found not based on any cogent materials and lodged against by the petitioner no.1 only to save himself from the complaint lodged by her . Page 3 of 9 7. On behalf of the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, raises objection and submits that conduct of the present petitioners are very much evident from the allegation levelled against them by the present opposite party no.2, who compelled to lodge subsequent complaints in respect of the incident happened on separate dates. The Investigating Agency found sufficient materials and after that submitted charge-sheet and therefore, this instant revisional application should not be entertained, otherwise it would be a gross abuse of the process of law. 8. On behalf of the Prosecution, the objection raises and submits that after conclusion of the investigation the charge sheet has been submitted which prima facie establishes the allegations, levelled against the petitioner and in order to test the veracity of the same, the petitioners must face the trial. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the revisional application. 9. Heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. The inimical relationship between the parties is very much evident from the materials available on records. It is also a fact that the first complaint was lodged by the present petitioner no.1 against the opposite party no.2 and in that case the charge sheet has been submitted and charge is framed. No such submission has come forward on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that such chargesheet was ever challenged or the order framing charge has been assailed before any forum. It further transpires that the instant proceeding being Ghatal P.S. Case No.454 of 2022 emanated on the basis of complaint lodged where the date of incident has been alleged on 07.12.2022. On a close scrutiny of the complaint, it can be found that it is completely silent about the previous complaint lodged by the present opposite party no.2 under Section 156(3) in respect of the incident dated February 20, 2022 against the same persons with almost identical allegation excepting the differences in the amount alleged to be stolen. On perusal of the Case Diary the statement of the opposite party no.2 is found to have been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That apart an injury report is also found in the Case Diary but the Investigating officer at the time of submission of charge-sheet left the concerned column blank. 10. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised in order to secure the ends of justice or where it is found apparent that allowing the proceeding to be continued would be nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and also waste of precious judicial hour. In the instant case, the allegations levelled by the opposite party no. 2 are directed against all the petitioners and include an allegation of outraging the modesty of a woman. Apparently, an injury report is available in the Case Diary and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the sister of opposite party no.2 and statement of various witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C also form part of the materials collected during investigation .On a prima facie consideration of such materials certain allegations appear to be made out against the petitioner no. 2 & 3. However, so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned no iota of materials to be collected against her in support of the allegations. 11. In the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. VS Bhajanlal & Ors.1 reported in the guidelines were framed where the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction which are as follows; “(a) 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 1 1992 supp (1) SCC 335 entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi- gation 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; (c) 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; (d) 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; (e) 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; (f) 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; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 12. In the instant case on close scrutiny it is evident that the opposite party no. 2 was arrested in connection with the complaint lodged against him by the petitioner no. 1 and was released on bail .The first complaint he lodged against the petitioner and her son is on 9.4.2022 and after that when they got release order the subsequent complaint lodged with almost identical allegation. No specific overt act or role has been attributed to the petitioner no 1. It further appears that in the subsequent complaint the opposite party no 2 suppressed the factum of earlier, which had itself been lodged after an inordinate delay. Such conduct, when considered in its entirety, prima facie reflects a deep seated grudge and appears to be an outburst arising therefrom, particularly against the petitioners. So far as the allegations of assault are concerned, the nature of the allegations made against all the petitioners has been duly considered. In the facts and circumstances of the case it squarely comes within the purview of clauses (a,) (c ) & (g )of the judgement referred to herein above. It is significant to note that upon completion of the investigation, the investigating officer has submitted the charge-sheet against all the petitioners for the offences committed under Section 341/323/379/354/506/34 of the I.P.C. So far the allegation of outraging modesty of a woman it is attributed towards the sons of the petitioner no. 1 .It is significant to note despite having no allegation of Section 354 against the petitioner no 1 who is a lady the I.O mechanically submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner no. 1 for commission of such offences. With regard to the allegation of theft the complaint as well as the chargesheet completely lacking any details of alleged gold chain. It is absolutely improbable to consider that the lady aged about 50 years alongwith her sons assaulted physically not only to the sister of the de facto complainant but to the him also and in the chargesheet the I.O kept the column no.11 as blank . The absence of any such material assumes significance while assessing the sustainability of the said charge against the petitioners in respect of the charges specially against the petitioner no.1. 13. Therefore upon conspectus of all this Court is of the view that no ingredients are there for which the charge under Section 379 IPC should be allowed to continue against any of the petitioners. 14. In addition prima facie on perusal of the entire materials collected during investigation as well as the contents of the written complaint, it is evident that no such ingredients or any iota of evidence are available against the petitioner no.1 to attract any of the offences as alleged who is a lady aged about 49-50 years. 15. Therefore, this Court is of the view that if the proceeding is allowed to be continued against her, it would be an abuse of the process of law. In such circumstances, the entire proceeding being is liable to be quashed against the petitioner no.1. So far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 as certain incriminating materials are found which includes statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C by the victim hence this court is not empowered to determine the veracity of the same by holding a mini trial and hence not inclined quash the entire proceeding against the petitioner no 2& 3 . 16. Therefore in view of the above discussion this CRR 3386 of 2023 is allowed in part. 17. The entire proceeding being in connection with Ghatal Police Station Case No.454 of 2022 under Sections 341/323/379/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate stands quashed qua the petitioner no 1. She is discharged from all the charges. 18. The petitioners no 2 & 3 are exonerated from the charge under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. However the further proceeding of Ghatal P.S Case no.454 of 2022 as stated above is allowed to be continued against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 in respect of the other penal sections in accordance with law. 19. All other connected application, if any, hereby stand disposed of. Page 8 of 9 20. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)