The court can quash FIRs that constitute an abuse of process, evident where charges arise from retaliatory motives linked to prior legal conflicts.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY KUMAR, J.

1. The present revisional application, CRR 4253 of 2022, has been filed by Sk. Mahabat Ali @ Mesbut Ali and Safika Begum (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners") under the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.PC"). The petitioners seek the quashing of criminal proceedings arising from Chanditala Police Station Case Number 521 of 2022, dated October 12, 2022, initiated under Sections 341/323/354B/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), along with all subsequent proceedings and actions, currently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly.

2. The core contention advanced by the petitioners is that the impugned FIR is not a genuine complaint disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, but rather a "malicious and retaliatory act" stemming directly from a prior legal conflict, thereby constituting a patent abuse of the legal process.

3. To adjudicate upon this contention, a meticulous examination of the factual matrix underpinning this application becomes imperative, as it reveals a sequence of events highly indicative of a pre-existing and escalating legal conflict. Petitioner no.1, Sk. Mahabat Ali, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) activist, had previously initiated a PIL, W.P.A. (P) 463 of 2022, before this very High Court. This PIL specifically targeted alleged illegal activities involving the husband of opposite party no.2, Ruksona Begum, and others within the Chanditala Police Station's jurisdiction.

4. The significance of this prior action became undeniable when, on September 19, 2022, the High Court intervened, directing the District Magistrate, Hooghly, to consider Sk. Mahabat Ali's representation after providing him a fair hearing opportunity.

5. Following this judicial mandate, the District Magistrate, Hooghly, issued a crucial notice on October 11, 2022, summoning petitioner no.1 for a hearing on October 21, 2022. It is the petitioners' emphatic assertion that this official notice served as the immediate catalyst for annoyance among the complainant's husband and his associates. Allegedly, on the very same day the District Magistrate's notice was served, October 11, 2022, the husband of the opposite party and others attacked the petitioners' house, resulting in significant injuries to petitioner no.2, Safika Begum. This alleged assault prompted the petitioners to report the incident to the local police, leading to the registration of Chanditala Police Station Case Number 516 of 2022 dated October 11, 2022, under Sections 448, 341, 323, 325, 354B, 504, 506, 34 of I.P.C.

6. The critical juncture arose on the very next day, October 12, 2022, at 16:05 hrs, when the impugned FIR (Chanditala P.S. Case No. 521 of 2022) was lodged by opposite party No.2, Ruksona Begum. She alleged that the petitioners abused her, assaulted her with a crowbar and stick, outraged her modesty by disrobing, and threatened her with rape and murder in the morning of October 12, 2022. Despite the police investigation culminating in a Charge Sheet (No. 494/2022) on October 31, 2022, recommending trial, and the petitioners subsequently securing bail, they steadfastly maintain their innocence and continue their legal battle to quash the proceedings, labelling the impugned FIR as a "counter-blast."

7. Mr. Anupam Kumar Bhattacharyya, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, forcefully argued that the impugned FIR (No. 521/2022) dated October 12, 2022, was lodged immediately following the progression of the petitioners' PIL and their own prior FIR (No. 516/22) on October 11, 2022. This striking temporal proximity, Mr. Bhattacharyya submitted, inherently raises grave doubts about the veracity of the allegations, strongly indicating that the complaint is not genuine but a calculated "counter-blast." He contended that this immediate succession i