Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 668
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
Pinak Bose And Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal And Anr. - Respondent
CRR 293 of 2025
Decided On : 07-11-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arjun Chowdhury, Ms. Sunayana Parveen, Ms. Riya Agarwal, Mr. Bappaditya Roy, Mr. Mantu Mondal
For the Respondent: Ms. Srishti Sarkar, Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Ld. Appellant, Mr. Sourav Ganguly
The court distinguished between civil disputes and criminal allegations, concluding that the FIR lacked basis for cognizable offences under the cited sections.
Headnote:(A) BNS 2023 - Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 338, 61(2), 3(5) - Criminal conspiracy regarding land transaction - Petitioners accused of evading stamp duty through a gift deed in place of a sale deed - Case deemed a family dispute with no criminal implications, lacking elements of deception or dishonest intention. (Paras 1, 8, 12, 15)
(B) Prosecution - No cognizable offence established under the alleged sections; FIR found to be a misuse of legal process born from a civil partnership dispute rather than a criminal act. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners involved in a family dispute over a land transaction where a gift deed was executed instead of a sale deed, allegedly resulting in the state suffering revenue loss of Rs. 70,000 due to evasion of stamp duty. Complainant’s motives questioned due to the timing of the FIR post-licence suspension.
Findings of Court:
The proceedings were quashed as the court found that the allegations did not constitute any offences under the cited sections of law, and were primarily civil in nature.
Issues: Whether the FIR describes a valid cognizable offence or just a civil matter, and whether the delay in filing affects the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR based on an intra-family land transfer did not reveal any criminal wrongdoing. Thus, the proceedings would lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Result: Proceedings quashed and CRR 293 of 2025 allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to pending criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. family business dispute leads to allegations. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments point to civil nature and absence of criminality. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. prosecution's stance on prima facie case of criminal offense. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court finds no substantive criminal offense established. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. court's decision on civil versus criminal matters. (Para 15) |
| 7. quashment of proceedings based on lack of merit. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
1. Petitioners herein have challenged the impugned proceeding being Maynaguri P.S. case no. 122 of 2025 under section 316 (2)/ 316 (5)/ 318 (4)/338/61(2)/3 (5) of BNS 2023 pending before CJM, Jalpaguri.
2. The petitioners have been arraigned in the said case as an accused alleging interalia that in the year 2021, the petitioner no.1 in criminal conspiracy with petitioner no.2 had compelled the opposite party no.2 to purchase 35 decimal of land at a consideration of Rs 50 lakhs but the petitioner had executed a deed of gift instead of a deed of sale and thereby the petitioners have evaded the public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- which otherwise could have to be paid as stamp duty and registration fees to the government.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after the demise of Pradyut Kumar Bose, the father of petitioner no.1 and opposite party no. 2/complainant and father in law of petitioner no.2, the petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no.2 inherited the running saw mill business of their father. Petitioners’ grievance is that inspite of repeated request, the complainant /opposite party no.2 refused for disclosure of books of accounts and for which he issued a letter to opposite party no.2 herein on 11.09.2024, asking him to furnish all the financial data for the last four years but inspite of receiving written request, the opposite party no.2 had not acted upon such request and continued to act arbitrarily and for which the petitioner no.2 preferred a representation before Divisional Forest Officer, Jalpaiguri who issued a show cause notice to all the parties, as to why their forest licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner no.1 also preferred a complain against opposite party no.2 on 18.11.2024 alleging that there exists certain partnership dispute between the parties and as such his land which he has consented to be used for the purpose of the saw mill business to be vacated as he intend to sell out the land citing financial crisis. Thereafter upon the order of DFO, Jalpaiguri division, dated 05.02.2025 the Forest licence issued by Directorate of Forest was suspended and the operation of the saw mill of the parties was kept in abeyance provisionally till the matter is amicably resolved between the parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Arjun Chowdhury submits that in the above background opposite party no.2 preferred the instant complaint with the aforesaid allegation of depriving the government of its revenue to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. In this context Mr. Chakraborty further submits that his clients obtained anticipatory bail from the court of Sessions Judge where the public prosecutor submitted that government has not suffered any loss of revenue. The court also while granting anticipatory bail observed that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the case diary also revealed that the government has not suffered any monetary loss.
5. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that the instant case is a classic example of the abuse of the process of the court, which has arisen due to family dispute wherein an old transaction which took place about four years back has been brought into the picture to register the instant case. His further contention is the allegation in the FIR, even if, accepted in toto can at best constitute a civil or revenue dispute concerning intra family members land transfer as a gift deed instead
