Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 942

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.
Prabhu Nath Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State Of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 264 of 2025
Decided On : 17-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Avik Ghatak, Adv., Mr. Fahad Imam, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Sarkar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP., Mr. Saryati Datta, Adv., Mr. Sachit Talukdar, Adv., Mr. Md. Bani Israil, Adv., Mr. Sayed Md. Sayed, Adv., Mr. Arnya Basu, Adv.

The court emphasized the necessity of conducting a preliminary inquiry before proceeding with an FIR to prevent abuse of legal process in cases with potential ulterior motives.

Headnote:(A) BNS, 2023 - Sections 438, 442, 528, 173, and 175 - Application for quashing proceedings initiated by Judicial Magistrate against petitioners - Allegations of serious criminal offenses including grievous harm and illegal construction - Mistaken failure of the Magistrate to apply judicial mind and conduct a preliminary enquiry - Court emphasized compliance with procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 3-19)

(B) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Guidelines for exercising inherent power of the court to prevent unjust prosecution - Examination of necessity for a prima facie case before a police investigation is mandated. (Paras 3, 17)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the legality of a FIR lodged against them which alleged cognizable offenses including grievous harm. The case arose from complaints regarding illegal construction and violence stemming from property disputes.

Findings of Court:
The court found the Magistrate had not conducted a necessary preliminary inquiry, thereby allowing proceedings to continue could constitute an abuse of legal process and a misuse of power.

Issues: The court considered whether the Magistrate's order for investigation was justified or systematically flawed by a lack of due process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to conduct a preliminary enquiry, coupled with an existing dispute's context and relationship between the parties, necessitated quashing the FIR to prevent prosecutorial abuse.

Result: CRR allowed.

Table of Content
1. application for quashing fir initiation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's argument on legal infirmities. (Para 3 , 4)
3. respondent's opposition on fir quashing. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's power in assessing firs. (Para 7 , 11 , 18)
5. judicial scrutiny of fir validity. (Para 12 , 14 , 16)
6. court's ruling and order. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This is an application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 /442 of BNS S , 2023 read with Section 528 of S , 2023, for quashing of the proceeding in connection with G.R case number 3544 of 2024, arising out of Hirapur Police Station case no. 356 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section (2)/119(1)/126(2)/76/304(2) of the , 2023 and also the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in connection with complaint case number 1649 of 2024 by the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman.

2. The genesis of the case, originated on the basis of a letter of complaint dated 17.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner no. 3, herein addressing the officer-in-charge, Hirapur Police Station over which Hirapur Police Station case number 354 of 2024 dated 17.12.2024 was initiated against 12 accused persons, including the husband of the opposite party no.2 herein with an allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 191(2)/192(3)/190/115(2)/117(2)/109/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS , 2023. Subsequently on 20.12.2024, the opposite party no.2 preferred the application under Section 175 (3) of the S , 2023 before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, which was numbered as complaint case number 1649 of 2024, and was taken up on the same date by the Learned Magistrate and on the basis of an order of the same date passed by the learned court the Hirapur Police Station case number 356 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024 was initiated against the present petitioners.

3. It is submitted by the learned Senior advocate representing the petitioner that the order passed by the Learned Court to initiate a case against the present petitioner suffers from grave infirmity and is bad in law and therefore is liable to be set aside. That apart, while passing the order impugned the Learned Magistrate failed to record any reason as to why the direction was given to the officer-in-charge of Hirapur Police Station to initiate the case against the petitioners herein and thereby mechanically proceeded to direct such investigation and has violated the settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava. It is further submitted that the Learned Magistrate did not give any direction for preliminary enquiry in order to ascertain the veracity and viability of the allegations levelled by the Opposite Party no. 2, as if such preliminary enquiry would have done, it would have been clear that the allegations levelled against the petitioner was an attempt to initiate the proceeding against the petitioners as a counter blast to the complaint lodged at their behest.

4. It is further submitted that it would cause a travesty of justice if the order dated 20.12.2024 is not set aside at an earliest. The Learned Senior Advocate has relied upon a decision reported in, Om Prakash Ambedkar versus State of Maharashtra and others , 2025 SCC online SC 238. The further decision relied upon is Babu Venkatesh and others versus State of Karnataka and other reported in 2022 SCC online SC 200 Another decision relied upon by the Learned Advocate reported in Mehmood Ali and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2023) 15 SCC 488 where the situations were discussed when the prayer for quashing of the FIR can be allowed.

5. The Learned Advocate, representing the respondent no.2 vehemently raised objection against the contention of the learned advocate of the petitioner and it is submitted that the allegations are serious and the investigation is still going on and at this stage, if the F.I.R is quashed,