Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Chaitali Chatterjee Das, J.
Avijit Singha Roy – Petitioner
versus
State of West Bengal and Anr. – Respondents
CRR 1577 of 2023
Decided on 24.2.2026

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee, Mr. Soumyadeep Nag, Mr. Satyam Pandey, Advocate.
For the State:Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Bhaskar Hutait, Mr. Dhiman Banerjee, Mr. Quasi Ezaz Ahmed, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Defamation, intentional insult, criminal intimidation and insulting gestures – Merely pendency of a civil suit is cannot render a criminal proceeding otiose but it is to be seen whether complaint itself is having any criminal intent or not or whether a civil dispute has been cloaked with criminal intent by filing a complaint.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 500/504/506/509 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 482 [Section 528] – Defamation, intentional insult, criminal intimidation and insulting gestures – Merely pendency of a civil suit is cannot render a criminal proceeding otiose but it is to be seen whether complaint itself is having any criminal intent or not or whether a civil dispute has been cloaked with criminal intent by filing a complaint – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court can be exercised to quash proceeding in a proper case, either to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice – There is distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with accusation may or may not support acquisition in question – No materials on face of complaint in order to constitute an offence under sections as alleged on face of complaint as well as from evidence collected during investigation – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 12, 13, 16 and 18)
Result: Application allowed.

JUDGMENT

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of proceeding and charge sheet no.267 of 2022 dated 23.9.2022, under Section 500/504/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hooghly.

2. The petitioner is working in Hewlett Packard Enterprise India private Limited (HP) in the post of Enterprise Business Manager Public Sector, North Eastern region of India for last 17 years. A partition suit being Title suit No.9 of 2014 is pending between the present petitioner and Swapan Kumar Singha Roy and others before the First Civil Judge. (Senior) at Chinsurah, Hooghly. A complaint was lodged by the daughter of Swapan Singh Roy against the petitioner by the Opposite Party no. 2 alleging against the present petitioner of constant abuse of torture, psychological trauma, anxiety and also physically threatened him on regular basis. He intentionally insults and verbally abuses the complainant in public sometimes in drunken/intoxicated, state, passing disrespectful and jarring comments to him, and he would be child. Further alleged that the petitioner has deliberately tried tarnishing her dignity and reputation following a constant threat to her and despite the same being informed to her higher authorities they turned a deaf year to their vexatious complaints which were aimed at damaging her reputation. It was apprehended that she is now scared about the safety of her family, and of her would be child as the hooligans will not stop at anything to gain what they desire by hook or crook. She further alleges of stalking by the petitioner with his personal car and his distasteful comments are a slur on the dignity and chastity of a woman. On the basis of such complaint, Balagarh P.S case no. 264 of 2022 started with the above mentioned charges.

3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the complaint is a counter blast to the suit pending between the parties and the dispute is purely civil in nature and only in order to the harass the present petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the complaint on the face of it do not constitute any offence and is devoid of any specific date or time of such alleged incident to that extent whereby the complainant is apprehensive about her and her family member’s safety and security. It is further submitted that an application for ad interim injunction was preferred by the father of the petitioner, which was allowed with a direction to the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit. After that one M.P case under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also filed by the father of the petitioner against Swapan Kumar Singh Roy, the father of the de-facto complainant where from the police report submitted by the concerned police station, it was clearly stated that the dispute between the parties relates to land dispute and civil in nature. A money suit has also been filed by the de-facto complainant against the petitioner and two cousin with a claim of Rs.30,00,000/- from the petitioner and two other cousin as damage towards defamation, which is also pending before the First Court of Civil Judge (senior division) at Chinsurah Hooghly being Money suit no.63 of 2022.

4. It is the specific contention of the learned advocate that the date of incident stated mentioned during investigation is out and out false and concocted as the petitioner on that day came to Calcutta from Guwahati and went to Chinsurah Court for the purpose of a bail application in connection with Balagar P.S. case no. 101 of 2022 lodged by the father of the defacto complainant against the Bargadar of the petitioner’s land. The learned advocate in this regard relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swami Brahmatmananda v. Dr Alok Kumar Maiti and Another, [2024 S.C. Online Cal. 2086] and Madhusree Dutta v. State of Karnataka and Another