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

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 1720 of 2017 With IA No. CRAN 14 of 2025 Prabir Roy Vs.

Parag Mukherjee With CRR 4316 of 2022 Prabir Roy Vs.

Parag Mukherjee For the petitioners : Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Mr. Pritam Roy Ms. Sarmistha Basak For the opposite party : Mr. Anand Keshri Ms. Soumili Chaudhuri Ms. Pubali Debnath Heard on : 17.03.2025 Judgment on : 17.06.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The present application being CRR 1720 of 2017 has been preferred with a prayer for quashing of the proceeding being complaint case no.

C/11369 of 2011, initiated under sections 219/500/34 of IPC presently pending before learned 9th Judicial Magistrate Alipore.

2. It is submitted that during pendency of a civil dispute between the co- sharers of the joint undivided paternal property, situated at 3, Sarat Bose Colony, on 23rd January, 2017 and 13th February, 2007 paternal uncle of the opposite party Prantosh Mukherjee and cousin brother of opposite party Snehasish Mukherjee received two notices from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Alipore, which discloses that police officer of Kasba police station filed two reports under Kasba P.S. PR. No. 864 of 2006 and 867 of 2006 dated 30.12.2006 and 2nd November, 2006 respectively and prayed for issuance of process under section 107 of the Cr.P.C. against said Prantosh and Snehasish. It is further case of the opposite party that curiously the Sub Divisional Magistrate Alipore initiated a proceeding under section 107 of Cr.P.C. against the complainant herein Parag Mukherjee also on the basis of a police report being Kasba P.R. No. 1005 of 2006 dated 28.12.2006. Opposite party obtained a certified copy of said police report dated 28.12.2006, wherefrom it appears that without any specific allegation police implicated the opposite party in the said case. Not only that in the said police report complainant/opposite party Parag Mukherjee was described as an accused and without any specific allegation against the petitioner, it was written therein that the accused including the said Parag Mukherjee are ‘desperate and dangerous in nature’ and are liable to be prosecuted under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further case of the opposite party that said Pranotosh and Snehasish moved a criminal revision petition being CRR 867 of 2007 before this High Court and by an order dated 25th June, 2008, the said proceeding under section 107 of Cr.P.C. was quashed. Further cases of the opposite party is that since the opposite party herein acted as an Advocate of aforesaid Pranotosh Mukherjee and Snehasish Mukherjee, the police submitted the said false report against the opposite party herein to initiate the prosecution under section 107 of Cr.P.C. and on the basis of said police report learned Magistrate issued notice asking the opposite party to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for maintaining peace and good behaviour in the locality for a period of one year.

3. The grievance of the opposite party which prompted him to initiate proceeding under section 219/500/34 is that the petitioner herein as police officer defamed the opposite party/complainant, who is an Advocate, in the eyes of the public as well as his clients. The intention of the police was to ruin the professional career of the petitioner. His further case is that there is no allegation against the opposite party herein but even then he was described as a man of desperate and dangerous nature. Further grievance of the opposite party/complainant is that such sort of remarks and/or allegation against him caused serious damage to his reputation and professional dignity and social prestige. Because of such proceeding complainant had to appear before the High Court as an accused and complainant’s clients and friends enquired him as to why police had filed the said report against him. Many others have developed bad im