IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA CRR/16/2026 SHRI KAPIL ABROL … PETITIONER VS. THE STATE AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Ms. Vinita Devi For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar Heard on : April 16, 2026 Judgment on : April 20, 2026 SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. 1. The petitioner has, in the present revisional application, sought the quashing of an FIR bearing No. 0002 of 2026 dated January 31, 2026, registered against the petitioner at the Swaraj Dweep Police Station under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”, for short). 2. The petitioner contends that the scope of the complaint lodged against the petitioner, which was the genesis of the FIR, pertains purely to a civil dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R. Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (Criminal Appeal No. 2963/2025, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 2 No. 4880/2025) in support of the proposition that in disputes purely of a civil nature, no criminal proceeding can be initiated. 3. It is submitted that the nature of the complaint was that the petitioner runs a hotel by the name of “M/s Hotel Kingdom” in the Swaraj Dweep Island, where the complainant allegedly did not get proper amenities even after having booked an accommodation there on an online platform. 4. By taking the Court through the contents of the First Information Report, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the remedy, if any, of the complainant lay in a claim for damages. It is submitted that while registering the FIR, the police went beyond the complaint and took into consideration another allegedly similar complaint dated December 27, 2025 received from two others, who have already been refunded their accommodation charges by the petitioner. 5. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioner at all. Thus, the FIR, it is argued, is not maintainable in the eye of law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the investigation has already been completed on the basis of the FIR and charge sheet has been filed. Accordingly, it is argued that the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage, having already culminated in a charge sheet, on the basis of which a criminal trial has commenced. 3 7. Heard both sides. Upon consideration of the FIR, certain important features are evinced. 8. First, the complaint, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, was lodged by one Smt. Priyanka Gupta. As per the FIR itself, she had not specified the website or platform on which she had viewed the photographs or videos of the hotel. During the course of enquiry, as per the FIR itself, efforts were made to contact the complainant on the mobile number provided by her but it was found that the such mobile number did not belong to the complainant at all. Moreover, an email was sent to the email ID furnished by the complainant, requesting her to contact the Enquiry Officer and clarify the source of the photographs seen by her, as the allegation could not be conclusively examined in the absence of such crucial information. However, no response could be elicited from the complainant till the date of registering the FIR. 9. Thus, as revealed by the FIR itself, there was precious nothing obtained by the Enquiry Officer on the actual complaint which was the trigger for the impugned FIR. Such fact itself would be sufficient to quash the FIR. 10. Secondly, the Enquiry Officer, during investigation, fished out of his own another complaint dated December 27, 2025 which was received from one Smt. Swati Sharma and one Shri Amarendra Mishra, who had stated that they had booked rooms online well in advance and completed 4 full payment prior to arrival but upon reaching the hotel, initially no room was available. 11. The term “initially” clearly indicates that subsequently rooms were actually made available to them, which is also admitted in the FIR. However, allegedly, in the said room, there was water leakage and it was in an unhygienic condition, due to which they directly approached the Police Station and lodged a complaint. 12. According to the FIR, physical inspection of the hotel and comparison with photographs available on various online portals revealed that the structures and amenities shown in the photographs did physically exist; however, allegedly due to “poor maintenance and lack of proper upkeep”, the condition of the rooms and infrastructure had “deteriorated considerably”, as a result of which the tourists arriving at the hotel “feel cheated”, as the actual condition does not match the impression created by the photographs displayed online. 13. Conspicuously, it was not disclosed in the FIR as to what was the exact source of the photographs which was allegedly displayed in the online and/or as to whether it was the petitioner who had uploaded those photographs and/or had solicited guests to the hotel on the premise of such photographs. Also, it is not clear from the FIR as to whether the petitioner at all induced anyone into coming to the hotel or was responsible for uploading the photographs. Moreover, the “feeling of being cheated” on the part of boarders is not an offence per se under any 5 law prevalent in the country and can at best be a subjective perception of the guests at the hotel. 14. Also, as per the FIR itself, the rooms shown in the photographs actually existed, thereby ruling out any misrepresentation on the part of petitioner in the advertisements, if any. The Enquiry Officer, on his own, came to the conclusion on the basis of conjecture and surmise that the infrastructure and conditions of the room was poor due to “lack of maintenance and proper upkeep” which, by itself, is also not an offence. Again, the exact condition of the rooms and the exact deficiencies in service/amenities are conspicuous by their absence in the FIR. 15. The FIR, thereafter, proceeds to observe that it was further found that customers often seek refunds, which are denied by the hotel management by citing reservation policies mentioned in the website. Curiously, there is complete absence of any particular and concrete instance of something of that sort having ever happened to justify such general and sweeping observations. The FIR does not cite any particular complaint or occasion when refund was refused by the petitioner. Rather, from the annexure to the present application, it is found that refunds were actually given to several customers on different grounds. 16. Surprisingly, in the FIR itself, it is categorically admitted that the disputes relating to refund are civil in nature. Yet, the Enquiry Officer cites alleged “repeated instance of customers being induced to book rooms based on photographs that do not reflect the present condition of 6 the hotel”, which, according to the Enquiry Officer, amounts to misleading representation and prima facie, attract the offence of cheating. 17. It is well-settled that to come within the purview of the offence of cheating, the alleged false impression has to be given at the inception. Since the FIR admits that rooms were provided to the guest according to the photographs available on different websites, and that the lack of maintenance and proper upkeep (which by itself is not an offence) led to the condition of the rooms having “deteriorated”, it cannot be said that there was cheating on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, there is nothing whatsoever disclosed in the FIR to indicate the source of such information on the part of the investigating authorities regarding repeated instances of customer being induced by the petitioner or that the petitioner had any such role of inducement at all, or that refunds were refused. In the absence of citation of a single instance as mentioned in the FIR, the FIR is completely without any basis. 18. The FIR indicates that enquiry revealed “multiple instances” of such situations against the hotel, without revealing the particulars of even a single such instance where the petitioner was involved in inducing customers to come to the hotel but failed to provide appropriate facilities and/or the involvement of the petitioner in uploading the photographs on the basis of which such promises were allegedly made to the prospective guest. 7 19. Even otherwise, as the FIR itself says, the lack of proper facilities in a hotel can at best lead to claims of refund, which is purely civil in nature and by itself, does not constitute any offence under the law. 20. The Court is not unmindful of the settled legal position that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia and need not be as elaborate as pleadings. Also, during investigation certain new facts may come up which were not there in the initial complaint. However, that does not mean that the FIR shall not disclose even the rudiments of a cognizable offence. Moreover, although the genesis of the investigation was a particular complaint by a particular person who could not even be traced out/contacted subsequently, nor produced any material to substantiate her complaint, the Enquiry Officer then went out of his way to dig up other complaints without such complainants coming up of their own to pursue their allegations. The Enquiry Officer did not even bother to ascertain whether the grievance of such other complainants was actually addressed and/or they were refunded their booking money. Not stopping there, the investigation turned into a roving inquiry and the Enquiry Officer made sweeping and general remarks, without any particulars, to paint the petitioner black. The modus operandi, thus, creates an impression that the investigation was designed more to malign the petitioner and his hospitality business than to search out the truth. 21. The charge sheet, which is produced by the respondents before the Court from the Case Diary, is a mere replica of the contents of the FIR 8 and is, thus, vitiated by the same infirmities and lacunae, as discussed above, which render the FIR suspect. 22. It is well-settled that in the event an FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence or contain any basis to incriminate the accused person, the same can be quashed at any stage. 23. The respondents have argued that it is open to the petitioner to canvas the points taken in the present application at the time of framing of charges. However, this Court finds no reason as to why the petitioner should be unnecessarily relegated to the stigma of a criminal trial to protect his right to dignity and personal liberty, when the FIR, which is the very genesis of such trial and the charge sheet, is ex-facie denuded of any basis whatsoever. 24. That apart, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R. Singh (supra), the remedy in a money claim of refund lies in a civil suit or any other appropriate remedy available in law but the complainant cannot be permitted to stake such claim by taking recourse of criminal proceedings. 25. Accordingly, since the Court finds that not even the rudiments of any offence under the BNS are disclosed in the FIR and the same is completely without any basis, beyond the original complaint, devoid of any particulars of the alleged offence against the petitioner, and appears to be coloured more by prejudice than facts, the same cannot stand the scrutiny of law even for a moment. 9 26. Accordingly, CRR/16/2026 is allowed on contest, thereby quashing the impugned FIR, bearing FIR No. 0002 of 2026 dated January 31, 2026, registered under section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner at the Swaraj Dweep Police Station, and the consequential charge sheet. All consequential incidents and steps premised on the said FIR stand hereby revoked and cancelled as well. 27. Urgent Photostat certified copies of the judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. ( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )