SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 410

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
UDAY KUMAR, J.
Bhabatosh Ghosh & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondent
CRR 1493 of 2024 And CRR 1494 of 2024 (CRAN 1 of 2024)
Decided On : 08-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kaustav Banerjee, Mr. Kaustav Banerjee, Ms. Riya Kundu
For the De facto Complainant : Mr. Dipankar Saha, Mr. S.K. Kabir
For the State : Ms. Shaila Afrin, Mr. Subhojit Chowdhury, Mr. Iqbal Kabir, Mr. Subhasis Dutta

Civil disputes do not exempt individuals from prosecution for criminal offenses; allegations of assault and intimidation must be assessed through the criminal justice system without prior dismissal.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Criminal proceedings characterized as malicious prosecution - Revisionary applications filed to quash cases due to alleged retaliatory motives linked to a civil land dispute - Court determined existence of prima facie case against petitioners. (Paras 2-4, 22-29)

(B) Criminal Law - Distinction between civil disputes and criminal offenses - Civil conflict does not immunize from prosecution for criminal actions - Allegations of forceful entry, assault, and intimidation adjudicated separately from civil matters. (Paras 24-25)

(C) Abuse of Process - High Court's powers under Section 482 used cautiously to prevent misuse - Complaints can be dismissed only when proven to be baseless. (Paras 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners faced criminal charges for assaults and intimidation alleged by two complainants amidst an ongoing civil land dispute. The alleged incidents purportedly occurred after previous legal conflicts.

Findings of Court:
The court found no basis for quashing the prosecutions, concluding a prima facie case existed against the petitioners, and dismissed both revisionary applications.

Issues: The legitimacy of the criminal complaints against the backdrop of a civil dispute and claims of malicious prosecution were central to the court’s review.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that civil disputes do not provide immunity from criminal prosecution and that the courts must not preemptively quash charges before trial based on the potential motives.

Result: Both applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of revisional applications and their context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual background and escalation of land dispute leading to criminal complaints. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments for the petitioners regarding the retaliatory nature of complaints. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. arguments from the respondents opposing the quashing of criminal proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. court’s analysis of legal principles and application to the case facts. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. final conclusions and orders issued by the court. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

Uday Kumar, J.

1. This common judgment shall dispose of two revisional applications, CRR No. 1493 of 2024 and CRR No. 1494 of 2024, filed by the same petitioners, Bhabatosh Ghosh, Avijit Ghosh, and Biswajit Ghosh. Both applications invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, along with its revisional powers, to seek the quashing of two separate criminal proceedings.

2. The first criminal revision application, CRR No. 1493 of 2024, pertains to G.R. Case No. 1988 of 2023, which arose from Gaighata Police Station Case No. 591 of 2023. The original First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 323, 325, 506, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A subsequent chargesheet (No. 577 of 2023) was filed under Sections 447, 323, 506, and 34 of the IPC. This case was initiated on the basis of a court complaint by opposite party no. 2, Sanjib Sarkar.

3. The second criminal revision application, CRR No. 1494 of 2024, is directed against G.R. Case No. 1784 of 2023, which arose from Gaighata Police Station Case No. 549 of 2023. The original FIR was registered under Sections 448/323/427/506/34 IPC, with a later chargesheet (No. 662 of 2023) filed under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This case was initiated by a written complaint from opposite party no. 2, Biswajit Sarkar.

4. The central contention, common to both applications, is that these criminal proceedings constitute a malicious prosecution and are a "counterblast" to a long-standing civil land dispute. According to the petitioners, these proceedings amount to a grave abuse of the legal process, and they seek the quashing of the criminal cases.

5. The dispute with complainant Sanjib Sarkar began to formalize with the petitioners' legal actions. When Sanjib Sarkar started facing disturbances, he first lodged a diary with the Gaighata Police on July 7, 2022. This was followed by a more serious alleged incident on July 20, 2022, when the petitioners allegedly assaulted him after he obstructed their attempt to unlawfully capture his land. Because the police initially did not act, Sanjib Sarkar was compelled to file a court complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on August 31, 2022. This procedural step ultimately led to the registration of a formal police case, Gaighata P.S. Case No. 591 of 2023, and the subsequent filing of a chargesheet after an investigation.

6. While in another case, the prosecution's claim is that the same petitioners acted with the intent to grab property from another complainant, Biswajit Sarkar. The central criminal incident occurred on May 28, 2023, when the petitioners are alleged to have forcefully entered Biswajit Sarkar's house. Once inside, they escalated the situation by damaging household articles. When Biswajit Sarkar attempted to intervene, he was physically assaulted with "fist and blow" and threatened with death, along with his family. Biswajit Sarkar immediately filed a written complaint with the police on the same day. The ensuing police investigation concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the allegations, leading to the filing of a chargesheet that includes offenses such as wrongful restraint (Section 341 IPC), voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323 IPC), criminal intimidation (Section 506

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top