IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 2630 of 2023 Victor Bulbul Vs.

The State of West Bengal & anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Shraman Sarkar Mr. Tasnim Ahmed Mr. Dhiman Banerjee Mr. Quazi Ezaz Ahmed For Opposite Party no. 2 : Mr. Uttam Kumar Shaw For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P Mr. Imran Ali Ms. Debjani Sahu Heard on : 20.08.2025 Judgment on : 16.12.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being Bidhannagar Women Police Station case no. 12 dated 26.05.2023 under section 376/354C/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).

2. The allegation labelled in the FIR interalia is that in the Year, 2016 in course of searching some employment, complainant came in contact with the Revisionist. She was offered for job of modelling and when she gave consent, some photographs and video were taken which appeared to be bold. The Revisionist kept those video and bold Photographs in his custody and started blackmailing her. The opposite party no.2 was forced to have physical intimacy with the petitioner and some other persons out of which petitioner made money. She requested for relieving her from his clutch by returning those bold photographs but failed. In 2021 she came out form his area and took one flat but he anyhow came to know about this place too. She got married in December, 2021 but bold photographs and videos were shown to husband and in-laws by the petitioner and for which her matrimonial life got spoiled. Still in facebook and social media she is being humiliated. Hence she prayed for Justice.

3. Petitioner‘s contention is that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 29.05.2023. Thereafter on 04.06.2023, the aforesaid de facto complainant/opposite party herein filed a withdrawal letter of the complaint supported by notarised affidavit dated 03.06.2023 before officer in charge Bidhannagar women police station. The court concerned was pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the basis of no objection petition filed by opposite party no. 2. Thereafter on 27.06.2023, the investigating officer made a prayer for recording the statement of opposite party no. 2 once again under section 164 of the Code, but such prayer was rejected. The Investigating Officer on 24.07.2023 submitted a charge sheet in connection with the present case under section

376/354C/506/509 of IPC against the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding Mr. Ahmed learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite party has a tendency to lodge false complaint against persons to extort money from them. The opposite party no. 2 previously filed a case against one Sohel Ashik with a similar allegation being Haroa Police Station Case no. 467 of 2020 dated 31.12.2020 under section 376/417/506 of IPC which was subsequently quashed by this High Court in CRR no. 1120 of 2021. In the said case also the allegation of the father of the victim is that her daughter had relationship with the accused of the said case for a long period and they wanted to get themselves married and they also visited many places as if they are husband and wife. In the said case also the father of the victim gave a statement before concerned Police Station on 29.05.2023 in a similar nature. Not only that the de facto complainant herein had also lodged another case against one Rabiul Haque with almost self-same allegations before Rajarhat Police Station, being case no. 350 of 2024 dated 10.09.2024 under section 376/417/506 of IPC, alleging that the self-same victim /complaint herein was blackmailed by the said accused with some obscene picture of the victim and it was further alleged that the accused of the said case took her to one hotel on 29.03.2023.

5. Mr. Ahmed submits that cumulative appreciation of the prosecution story undoubtedly indicate concern on the