Back
Father's Courtroom Visitation Drama Ends in Quashed Charges: Calcutta HC Sides with Loving Dad
In a striking rebuke to what it deemed an abuse of the criminal justice system amid family strife, the has quashed proceedings against Subhadeep Chakraborty, a father accused of assaulting his six-year-old son during a supervised visitation at court premises. Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee ruled that the allegations, even taken at face value, failed to show the required criminal intent under for , 115(2) for , and 352 for .
The decision, delivered on , in Subhadeep Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. (CRR 4122 of 2025), underscores the court's reluctance to let matrimonial battles spill into unwarranted criminal prosecutions.
Tangled Ties: Matrimonial Feud Fuels Fire
The case stems from an ongoing matrimonial discord between Chakraborty and his estranged wife, the complainant. A six-year-old boy is at the heart of parallel battles: criminal charges from Case No. 237/2025 (pending before the ), a domestic violence proceeding, and a case where the father secured interim visitation rights on .
Visitation was fixed for
, at the
veranda. Trouble allegedly erupted around 2 p.m.: the child said he felt sleepy, the father reportedly got furious, dragged him down stairs toward the Town School gate, threw a tennis ball striking the boy's abdomen, abused and pushed the mother, drawing a crowd. The child was treated at
, where the injury report noted a simple hurt and history of
"physical assault by the petitioner"
per the mother's statement.
Two days later (), the mother sought suspension of visitation before the District Judge, claiming the father tried to flee with toys including the tennis ball; the child hurt his abdomen when refusing it amid a tug-of-war. FIR followed on . Police charged the father after statements from the mother, her father (not present), and her lawyer (CSW-3), plus the medical report—no independent witnesses despite the public court setting.
He Said, She Said: Battle of Narratives in Court
Petitioner's Plea: Vindicative Vendetta
Chakraborty's counsel highlighted stark contradictions between the application, FIR, and witness statements—e.g., sequencing of dragging vs. ball-throwing varied wildly. Only "interested" witnesses: the absent grandfather and biased lawyer who filed the suspension plea the day before FIR. No child injury initially prompted a three-day delay for fabrication. A loving father wouldn't assault his son, they argued; this was revenge to sever father-son bonds, lacking for offences. Continuation? Pure harassment and , per under .
Prosecution's Pushback: Evidence Holds Up
The State presented the case diary; the complainant stressed the government hospital's injury report (a public document under ) naming the father, with the doctor as witness. Quality over quantity rules (); rebut in trial, not quash here. The lawyer wasn't "interested" (no personal gain), and dragging the child beyond court violated visitation limits. They cited
Koppisetti Subbharao v. State of AP
(2009) 12 SCC 331 against mini-trials at quashing stage, urging expedited trial.
Peeling Back Layers: Why the Scales Tipped
Justice Mukherjee dissected the prosecution's frailties. Contradictions abounded across FIR, application, statements, and medical history—no independent corroboration in a bustling court, despite requests for more witnesses. Delay unexplained; story embellished?
On law:
needs voluntary obstruction of lawful path; hurt requires intent/knowledge of pain; insult needs provocation intent. But
"neither in the FIR nor charge sheet... any material suggesting deliberate intention"
to harm
his own child
during sanctioned meet. At worst,
"momentary reaction during an emotionally charged visitation."
Drawing from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), categories (a), (e), (g) fit: allegations don't make offence, absurd (father assaulting son?), malicious grudge. Echoing Hazi Iqbal Md. v. State of UP (2024) 15 SCC 776, courts must scrutinize well-drafted FIRs born of vengeance to prevent "severe scars" from frivolous trials.
As preliminary reports noted, the bench deemed the tale
"wholly unnatural and against human conduct."
Bench Bites: Judicial Gems That Sealed the Deal
"The entire allegation even if accepted , at best suggests a momentary reaction during an emotionally charged visitation, which by no stretch of imagination can be equated with the requisite criminal intent."
"It is wholly unnatural and against human conduct that a father, during a court sanctioned visitation, would deliberately assault his own minor child."
"The entire prosecution case rests solely on the statement of interested witnesses... No other independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case, despite the fact that the alleged incident took place on a working day within the court premises."
"Further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be mere ."
Gavel Falls: Proceedings Axed, Precedent Set
"CRR 4122 of 2025 is allowed. The impugned proceeding being Burdwan P.S. Case no. 237/2025... is hereby quashed."
This frees Chakraborty from trial, restoring dignity amid family wars. It signals vigilance against weaponizing minor scuffles in visitation into crimes—especially sans intent proof or neutral evidence. Future custodial battles may cite it to curb overreach, prioritizing substance over spite.
