IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

CRR 2208 of 2017

Biswajit Pal @ Biswajit Paul

-Vs-

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas

Mrs. Jyoti Agarwala

For the Respondent : Mr. Firdous Samim

Ms. Gopa Biswas

Mr. R. Saha

For the State : Mr. Imram Ali

Mrs. Debjani Sahu

Hearing concluded on : 31.10.2025 Judgment on : 14.11.2025

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

1. This Court is convened to adjudicate the Revisional Application, C.R.R. No.

2208 of 2017, preferred by the Petitioner, Shri Biswajit Pal. Invoking the inherent powers conferred by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), and buttressed by the supervisory authority of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks the singular relief of quashing the criminal proceedings arising from Singur P.S. Case No. 26 of 2016. These proceedings, initiated upon a complaint by Respondent No. 2, Amit Kumar Santra, culminated in a Charge-Sheet under Sections 420, 406, 341, and

323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The factual genesis of the dispute is palpably commercial, pertaining to a breach of contract regarding the supply of Jute Processing machines between the Petitioner (Buyer) and the Respondent No. 2 (Supplier). The Petitioner asserts that upon the Respondent's failure to fully deliver the machines despite a substantial payment of Rs. 38,14,000/-, he initiated legal recourse on January 15, 2016, by lodging Nabadwip P.S. Case No. 11 of 2016 under Sections 420/406 IPC against Respondent No. 2, and a Civil proceeding by filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum, being Case No. CC 139 of

2015, instituted on the same date, i.e., January 15, 2016.

3. The chronology of events is critical to the Petitioner's plea of an abuse of process:

a. The Petitioner first initiated both criminal (Nabadwip P.S. Case No. 11 of 2016, under Sections 420/406 IPC) and civil (Consumer Forum Case No. CC 139 of 2015) recourse against the Respondent on January 15, 2016.

b. In stark proximity, just eight days later, the Respondent lodged the impugned counter-FIR, alleging assault and coercion related to an incident purportedly occurring seven months earlier (June 11, 2015).

4. This temporal sequence—a proximate counter-filing following an inordinate delay concerning a stale allegation—constitutes a strong indicium of a retaliatory motive. It raises a serious suspicion of a malicious counter-blast intended to wreak vengeance, thereby warranting judicial scrutiny under the Bhajan Lal guidelines.

5. Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently contended that this subsequent criminal action is a clear abuse of the process of law, manifestly actuated by malice, intended solely to lend a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. Therefore, he prayed for quashing of this criminal proceeding.

6. Conversely, Mr. Firdous Samim, Learned Advocate for the respondent and Mr.

Imran Ali, the Learned Advocate for the State, relying on the record, asserted that the FIR discloses specific cognizable offences (Sections 341 and 323 IPC). He contended that the claim of mala fides is a disputed question of fact incapable of resolution in this revisional jurisdiction and must necessarily await the full rigour of a trial, thereby praying for the dismissal of the application.

7. The central legal query before this Court is whether the facts disclose a profound abuse of process warranting the extraordinary intervention of summary termination.

8. The power to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must be exercised with the utmost circumspection, as definitively established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. While the facts raise a strong suspicion of malice, the Court must be guided by the nature of the allegations themselves.

9. Upon a meticulous review of the FIR and the charge-sheet, this Court finds that the allegations, if taken at their fac