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

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 2449 of 2019 Suvo Bhattacharjee Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar Maiti (Mohanty)

Ms. Amrita Pandey For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Abhishek Banerjee Ms. Payel Ghosh Ms. Trisha Chanda Heard on : 13.01.2026 Judgment on : 30.03.2026 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of case no. 18724 of 2017 presently pending before learned 14th Judicial Magistrate Court, Calcutta under section 384/385 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).

2. The instant case had its origin on the basis of a complaint moved by opposite party no. 2 before the concerned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) Learned Magistrate by an order dated 24.03.2017 had turned down the prayer for police investigation and converted it as a complaint case and after taking cognizance transferred the same before J.M. 14th Court, Calcutta for inquiry and disposal. The transferee court directed police to conduct investigation to the alleged offence under the provision of 202 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter by a subsequent order dated 21.11.2007 had issued process upon the petitioner under section 384/385 of IPC.

3. The opposite party no.2 alleged in the complaint that on February, 23, 2017 at about 6.30 p.m. he being a Railway employee received a call from chief vigilance officer and accordingly on 24th February, 2017 he accompanied by his wife arrived at the office of chief vigilance inspector within the prescribed time. Thereafter the petitioner/accused no.1 and his companion started interrogating opposite party no.2 relating to criminal cases pending against him. It is alleged that while opposite party no.2 was answering the queries the petitioner and the other accused persons became annoyed and started misbehaving with opposite party no.2 and his wife and also started harassing opposite party no.2 intentionally. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the other accused persons forced opposite party no.2 to give statement in writing as uttered by them and further admonished Opposite party No.2 that on refusal, they will take him into custody and will also dismiss him from service. Thus, the opposite party no. 2 was compelled to write several incriminating statements and the petitioner allegedly forced opposite party no. 2 to put his signature on some white papers and on his refusal, Petitioner had threatened him and thereby unlawfully and forcefully compelled him to write some confessional statements under the fear of his life and under the threat of terminating him from service. It is further alleged that when the OP No.2 requested the accused persons not to create any unlawful pressure upon him, the accused persons became furious and asked his wife to go away from the spot and had misbehaved with her and thereby tried to outrage her modesty by pushing her. Therefore, the petitioners have committed offence punishable under section 384/385 of the IPC, compelling the complainant to put his signature in writing as per their instructions and also for obtaining signature of the complainant on white papers against his will and also for concealing those documents with ill motive.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned proceeding, Mr. Mohanty learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the chief vigilant inspector of Eastern Railway is a public servant within the meaning of section 21, IPC and pursuant to an order of the competent higher authority, he was holding the vigilance enquiry in connection with the allegation of taking huge money from different persons by the opposite party no.2 herein. The opposite party no.2 admitted in his petition of complaint that he received telephonic message from the end of the petitioner, who asked him to