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

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 3464 of 2019 Koushik Bhattacharya & Ors.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Arkaprabho Roy, Mr. Aniruddha Lahiri For the OP No.2 : Mr. Arun Kumar Maiti, Mrs. Kaberi Sengupta Mohanty Mr. R.R. Mohanty Ms. Pramita Banerjee, Ms. P. Chowdhury, Ms. R. Mazumder For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld.P.P., Ms. Faria Hossain, Ld. App.

Mr. Anand Keshari Heard on : 17.03.2026 Judgment on : 30.03.2026 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of the proceeding being G.R Case No. 2167 of 2019 presently pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah. The Opposite Party No.2 (in short O.P no. 2) herein stated that the petitioners herein and other two labours were effecting some works ostensibly for cutting grass and dressing of the common open ground on the complex of the petitioner. The complainant alleged that they were engaged themselves with the work, without the consent of the administrator. After getting such information the complainant went to the spot and demanded permission letter in support of their activities, but the petitioners allegedly abused de facto complainant with defamatory words and suddenly became violent and started assaulting him with fist and blows and had threatened him with dire consequences. On the basis of said complaint, Maniktala P.S Case No. 269 dated 19.08.2019, under Section 341/323/506/1014 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the petitioners.

2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 10th August, 2019, the members of the Housing Society had arranged to clean the weeds and grass from the lawn. At that time the O.P No. 2, who is not the member of the Society and had nothing to say about the affairs of the Society tried to prevent those persons who were cleaning the lawn and threatened them and also manhandled them. The lady members of the Housing Society were also abused by the O.P No. 2. The other members were also physically assaulted. Much prior to the instant FIR, the Petitioner No. 4, herein as complainant on the self-same date of occurrence, had lodged Maniktala P.S Case no. 259/19 dated 10.08.2019, under section 341/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code against the O.P No. 2 herein.

3. The instant F.I.R has been lodged 9 (nine) days after the incident whereas the aforesaid complaint of the petitioner no. 4 herein in connection with the self-same incident was registered on the same day, which clearly shows that the instant proceeding is nothing but counterblast. Furthermore written complaint does not contain any allegation that the petitioner voluntarily obstructed the O.P no. 2, so as to prevent him from proceeding in any direction, in which he has a right to proceed. Thus, no ingredient of section 339 of the I.P.C can be found in the written complaint, making the registration of the F.I.R wrong. Be it mentioned that wrongful restraint in the only cognizable offence, among the alleged offences. No specific allegation has been levelled against any of the petitioners in the written complaint or any statement recorded Under Section 161 of Cr. P.C and therefore, all the allegations are made in a vague, general and omnibus manner. O.P no. 2 also failed to produce any medical document to substantiate the allegation. In the Charge-sheet the role played by each accused in the crime has not been separately and clearly mentioned. In this context the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of Sharif Ahmed Vs. State of U.P, 2024 S.C.C online SC 726 and another Judgment of this Court passed in Hasin Jahan Vs. State of W.B., (C.R.R no. 766 of 2022). He further submits that mere allegation of threatening to kill does not constitute offence under section 506 of the I.P.C.

4. Mr. Arun Kumar Maity Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of O.P no. 2 argued that thoug