Back
Neighbors Cleared by Camera: Supreme Court Halts 'Malicious' Assault Trial
In a landmark intervention, the has quashed criminal proceedings against three apartment residents accused of assaulting a 77-year-old former prosecutor and his family. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria ruled that CCTV footage—part of the prosecution's own chargesheet—conclusively showed the appellants, Sajal Bose, Chandidas Joardar, and Sautrik Joardar, arriving after the altercation and attempting to calm the situation, not escalate it. This , verdict ( Sajal Bose v. State of West Bengal , 2026 INSC 322) sets aside a order, emphasizing that vague allegations and unimpeachable evidence like video recordings warrant quashing under to curb .
A Scooter, a Door, and Escalating Fury
The clash erupted on , at Kanishka Apartment in Kolkata's Janata Road. Complainant , a pacemaker-fitted senior advocate, alleged that Sourav Sen broke into the building's main door and abused him over valuables kept for Lakshmi Puja. Tensions flared over a scooter parked near electric meters, defying police orders. Chakrabarti claimed a mob, including the appellants, assembled, slapped and kicked him targeting his pacemaker, wielded lathis, threw sandals, damaged property, and threatened to ransack his flat. Specific threats to vacate were pinned on the Boses and Joardars.
Prior neighbor feuds over maintenance, gold ornaments, and police complaints colored the backdrop. A complaint lodged that night was held in abeyance until , leading to FIR No. 150/2022 on at Survey Park PS under . Chargesheet No. 135/2022 followed on . The complainant protested the omission of .
The appellants sought quashing via revisions before the , which dismissed relief for them on , while sparing their wives Nabina Bose and Pampa Joardar due to vague roles.
'Good Samaritans' vs. 'Dangerous Mob': Clash of Narratives
Appellants' Defense: Vague FIR,
Motive
Led by senior counsel
, the appellants portrayed themselves as interveners in a spat between Chakrabarti and Sen. They slammed the FIR for
without specific overt acts, arguing no
case under invoked
sections. Crucially, CCTV footage—seized by police and relied on by the complainant—allegedly showed their late arrival and de-escalation efforts. Prior animosity fueled a "vengeance" FIR, they claimed, invoking
Bhajan Lal
categories for quashing: no offence disclosed, improbable claims, and malicious institution. They highlighted parity with quashed co-accused and a perfunctory chargesheet lacking individual roles. Section 354 was baseless, as no specific molestation was alleged against them.
Complainant's Rebuttal: Specific Acts, Senior Victim
Senior counsel
for Chakrabarti stressed his vulnerability and detailed witness Dr. Aparajita Bandyopadhyay's
statement naming appellants: restraining, throwing chappals at the pacemaker, igniting a lighter to burn, assaults. CCTV corroborated abuses, threats, and assaults, backed by medical records showing injuries. The High Court rightly distinguished their roles from wives'. Trial needed for facts, not quashing.
The State echoed: investigation fair, evidence (FIR, statements, CCTV, meds) made out offences.
Pixels Over Protests: Court's Deep Dive into Evidence
The bench meticulously viewed the CCTV, finding appellants absent during assaults, arriving later to pacify.
"The footage further demonstrates that the appellants appear only subsequently and are not shown to be engaging in any act of aggression... gestures... demonstrative of restraint,"
it noted (Para 27).
Applying State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court held allegations, even , fell under Categories (1) (no offence), (3) (evidence belies case), and (7) ( ). No specific assaults attributed in FIR; threats vague. Dr. Bandyopadhyay's statement conflicted with version and was CCTV-disproved (no lighter incident).
The High Court's omission to analyze footage and arbitrary differential treatment (quashing for wives) was critiqued. Reiterating Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP (2025), the four-step test met: sterling CCTV material negated claims, unrefuted, trial abuse.
This aligns precedents like Bhajan Lal 's guardrails against process abuse in neighbor tussles, often civil at core.
Court's Sharpest Words
"The absence of even the slightest visible act of assault attributable to the appellants in the CCTV footage assumes particular significance..."(Para 27)
"Even if the allegations... are taken at their face value and accepted, they do notconstitute the necessary ingredients of offences alleged against the appellants."(Para 31)
"Compelling [appellants] to face a full-fledged criminal trial would serve no meaningful purpose."(Para 34)
Verdict: Proceedings Quashed, Justice Served Swiftly
The appeals succeeded; High Court order set aside. Chargesheet qua appellants stands quashed. Stay on trial lifted but rendered infructuous.
This ruling reinforces quashing where irrefutable evidence like CCTV dismantles prosecution at inception, sparing courts' time and shielding innocents from harassment. In petty neighbor disputes, it signals: video evidence can trump vague, grudge-driven FIRs, deterring criminalization of civil spats.
