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

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 3966 OF 2022 PRIARANJAN @ PRIYARANJAN @ MR. RANJAN & ANR.& ANR.

VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabir Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sudarshana Srivastava, Adv.

For the Opposite : Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.

Party no. 2 Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Sumon Dey, Adv.

Mrs. Manasi Roy, Adv.

Last heard on : 10.02.2026 Judgement on : 22.04.2026 Uploaded on : 22.04.2026 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS:-

1. This revisional application arises against an order dated August 17, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, 1st Court, Howrah cum Judge special Court, SC/ST (POA) Act, Howrah whereby the petition filed by the petitioners for discharge from the offences section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989 in connection with Special Case no.190/20 dated October 13, 2020 .

Brief facts of the case

2. The petitioner No.1 is a railway employee and petitioner no 2 is his wife and both of them are the resident of a railway quarter situated in a four storied building where the opposite party was also a resident and both of them had lawful right to use the terrace. It is the case of the petitioner that on October 13, 2020, an altercation took place between two families over the use and enjoyment of the terrace and as a result, both petitioner no.1 and 2 sustained injuries and they were treated on that day itself in the railway hospital and the petitioner lodged a GDE on the same day at Belur Police station being GDE No. 576 dated 13.10.2020.

3. The opposite party No. 2 initiated a FIR at Belur police Station Case No.

190/20 under section 341/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. On completion of investigation a charge sheet has been submitted under the aforesaid section in respect of the same incident with certain false and concocted story. On completion of investigation over the same, the charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under section 341/323/506 /34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)( r)&(s) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 . The petitioners thereafter filed an application for discharge on the ground of lack of materials to attract any of the charges and it was an afterthought only to which has been turned down by the learned Special Court. Being aggrieved thereby this revisional application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding pending before the learned Special Court.

Submission made by the petitioner

4. The learned advocate representing the petitioners argued that nowhere in the complaint it was mentioned that the petitioners belongs to higher caste than the opposite party or such abusive words were hurled in public place and within the public view and lastly the complaint was filed as to the fact that the petitioner abused them with the name of their caste, which are the essential elements to be mentioned or spelt out in the petition of complainant. It is further argued that to deal with the offences under section 341/323 of the Indian Penal Code it must be mentioned that the petitioner wrongfully restrained the opposite party No. 2 or any member of his family which could attract section 341 of the Indian penal code. In the written complaint no description of assault on the complainant’s daughter was mentioned and by whom. The incident arose out of a commotion occurred between the family members of the petitioners and the opposite party No. 2 and pursuant to such self-same incident two General Diary entries were lodged at Lilua police Station. The complaint lodged by the opposite party No. 2 was entered as G.D.E No. 575 which finds reference in the substantive part of the FIR. The counter complaint was registered as G.D.E No. 576 dated 13.10.20 and it manifest that both the parties approached the police station imme