Back
quashes criminal case against doctor over threat allegation against deceased accused
In a significant application of the under , the has quashed a criminal complaint against Dr. Gour Das, a noted neuro physician, after finding that the prosecution was based on an allegation—including a threat attributed to a co-accused who had died eight years before the alleged incident.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, presiding over the criminal revision, held that the continuance of the proceeding would amount to an . The court observed that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and had been improperly cloaked in criminality to harass the petitioner.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from Complaint Case No. 856 of 2018 filed by Bhabani Bhattacharjee, the niece of one Himangshu Nag. Nag and his wife Anima Nag had executed a registered Deed of Trust on , in respect of their property at Ballygunge, Kolkata. The trust, named '' after their deceased daughter, was intended to carry out charitable activities through the ground floor of the premises.
The complainant alleged that the trust deed was procured by fraud and manipulation by Dr. Das and another accused, Dr. Tapash Kumar Banerjee, who were respectively the Secretary and President of . It was further alleged that when Nag sought to revoke the trust deed, the accused threatened him with dire consequences on .
However, Dr. Das contended that the trust was created voluntarily by Nag and his wife after detailed discussions and was formally executed and registered. He also pointed out that Dr. Banerjee had died on —nearly eight years before the alleged threat.
Arguments and Legal Grounds
Senior counsel for the petitioner, , submitted that the complaint was filed after an unexplained delay of eight years from the registration of the trust deed. He highlighted that the complainant had attributed the 2018 threat equally to Dr. Banerjee, who was no longer alive at that time. The learned Magistrate had also failed to comply with the under before issuing summons to Dr. Das, who resides outside the court's territorial jurisdiction. Additionally, a civil suit concerning the same trust deed was already pending before the .
The respondent/complainant did not appear despite notice, and the court proceeded to consider the matter on merits.
Court's Legal Analysis
Justice Gupta examined the facts in light of the well-established principles laid down by the in . The court found that the present case squarely fell within Categories (1), (5), (6), and (7) of the illustrative circumstances enumerated in that judgment.
The court noted that the allegation of threat against Dr. Banerjee was
"not merely improbable but
,"
as the accused had died long before. Even taking the complaint at face value, it did not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner—falling under Category (1). The inherent improbability of the allegation placed it under Category (5). The non-compliance with
, a mandatory procedural safeguard, constituted an express legal bar under Category (6). Finally, the
on the same issue and the
behind the criminal complaint brought the case under Category (7).
Key Observations
The judgment recorded several crucial observations:
"The allegation of threat attributed to the accused no. 1, who had admittedly died nearly eight years before the date of the alleged occurrence, even if taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the commission of any offence by him and is, on the face of the complaint itself, so , that no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there exists sufficient ground for proceeding against him."
"The present criminal proceeding is a and has been instituted with an to harass and pressurise the petitioner."
The court also emphasized the delayed filing of the complaint—eight years after the execution of the trust deed—without any explanation, which further indicated an afterthought.
Decision and Implications
The High Court allowed the criminal revision and quashed Complaint Case No. 856 of 2018 pending before the , insofar as it related to Dr. Gour Das. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the lower court for information.
The ruling reinforces the principle that where a complaint is or where the dispute is essentially civil in nature, criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue as a tool of harassment. It also underscores the mandatory requirement of —an inquiry or investigation before issuing summons to an accused residing outside the court's jurisdiction.
