377 14.05 C.R.R. 2369 of 2023 akb 2025 Satyajit Deb Ct. No. 29 Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari Mr. Amrit Sinha Mr. Aniruddha Tewari …For the Petitioner Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Safdar Azam Mr. Syed Wasim Faruque Mr. Jyotirmoy Talukdear …For the Opposite Party No. 2 Mr. Debasish Roy Mr. Saryati Datta …For the State Petitioner herein has prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding being Special Case No. 142 of 2022 arising out of Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 794 of 2022 dated 17^th July, 2022 under Sections 341/354/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which is presently pending before the Court of learned Additional District & Session Judge, Special Court, Baruipur.

The allegation leveled against the petitioner in the written complaint is that the victim, who is aged about 11 years, is a student of Class V. Around five months back she went to the house of her neighbor, namely, the petitioner and when the victim was playing with the daughter of the accused, he impressed the victim and kissed her.

On the basis of such complaint the abovementioned criminal proceeding has been initiated and after completion of investigation, Police has submitted charge sheet under the abovementioned sections against the petitioner.

Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding, Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that no plausible explanation for the delay in lodging such complaint has been mentioned in the written complaint by the de facto complainant. Such delay afforded opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation with the alleged victim and to make embellishment or even to make fabrications therein. Therefore, an unnatural delay of five months cast a cloud of suspicion on the authenticity of the allegations made in the FIR by the de facto complainant. He further submits that the daughter of the defacto complainant and the daughter of the petitioner are the students of same Class and in the same School. In the first week of July, 2022, the daughter of the defacto complainant wrote one love letter to a boy belonging to the same school and being caught red handed she was rebuked by the teacher. Pursuant to which the Head Teacher of the concerned school called the defacto complainant and her daughter to meet personally in the office of the Head Teacher where defacto complainant was questioned about the conduct of her daughter at her tender age. Subsequently, the news spread in the school. Some guardians of the school requested the Head Teacher to look into the matter seriously. The defacto complainant was in belief that the wife of the petitioner was one of the guardians who met the Head Teacher of the School. The defacto complainant picked up a quarrel with the petitioner and his wife over this trivial issue by making allegation that they along with their daughter were spreading such news and maligning the daughter of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant intimidated the petitioner with dire consequences of entanglement with POSCO Act, 2012 on several occasions before registering the complaint and the same was witnessed by other neighbours of the petitioner and ultimately one day it was done and therefore the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

He further submits that there is no allegation of sexual intention on the part of the petitioner and as such section 8 of the POSCO does not attract in the present case. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner all the allegations are omnibus in nature and the petitioner has been entangled with a criminal case to take revenge over the incident that has been stated above. He further submits that the victim refused to undergo medical examination and such denial gives rise a