IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. 240 of 2024 Suranjan Mandal @ Suranjoy Mandal Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amarendra Chakraborty, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Arindam Sen, Sr. Govt. Adv.

Ms. Suruchi Saha, Adv.

Heard on : 22.12.2025 Judgment on : 07.01.2026 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. Petitioner/accused preferred this Criminal Revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC’), seeking quashing of the proceeding being Spl. P.A. – 10 of 2022 arising out of Itahar P.S. Case No. 304/22 dated

16.05.2022 under Sections 341/323/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the 1989 Act’) and charge sheet bearing no. 596/2022 dated 31.12.2022 under Sections 341/323/506/34 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the 1989 Act thereof pending before the Learned Judge, Special Court (POA Act), Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts, essential for the purpose of disposal of this Revisional application, are as under: -

a. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2/de facto complainant, an FIR being Itahar P.S. Case No. 304/22 dated 16.05.2022 under Sections 341/323/ 325/307/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the 1989 Act has been registered, and investigation has been initiated against the petitioner and another accused.

b. The opposite party no. 2/de-facto complainant had lodged a written complaint to the effect that on 15.05.2022 at about 2 PM, when he was returning from the house of one Durga Murmu of Pathantuli, and when he reached near the graveyard situated at the west of village Pathantuli, the accused persons abused and insulted him by addressing him as Adivasi and Santhal and also assaulted him with fists and blows. As a result, the opposite party no. 2 suffered injuries.

c. It was further alleged that the present petitioner, with the intention to kill the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2, tried to hit him on his head with an iron rod but somehow the de-facto complainant managed to save himself. Upon hearing the complainant’s cry, the local people reached to the place of occurrence to save the de-facto complainant from the clutches of the accused persons. Seeing the local people, the accused persons fled away by threatening to kill him.

d. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet, being no.

596/2022 dated 31.12.2022 under Sections 341/323/506/34 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the 1989 Act has been submitted against the petitioner and one other accused. The petitioner was arrested and, subsequently, he was released on bail.

e. However, the contention of the petitioner is that the allegations made in the FIR are patently absurd and wholly unbelievable and unreasonable. The present petitioner claims to be absolutely innocent and not involved in any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to some previous grudge.

Hence, this Criminal Revisional application.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has filed written notes of argument. It was argued that the allegation in respect of commission of an offence punishable under the SC & ST (POA) Act, by uttering abusive language towards the de facto complainant by touching his caste, is out and out false and fabricated. There is no whisper about the intention of the petitioner or the specific words used in the presence of the public to insult or humiliate. Therefore, no ingredients have been fulfilled to constitute an offence under the SC & ST Act.

4. It was further submitted that sufficient ingredients were not available in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 325/307 of I.P.C. Accordingly, at the time of filing the ch