Calcutta High Court - Port Blair
Shri Aditya Raj vs The State on 11 December, 2025
2025:CHC-PB:73
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]
********
PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
CRR/65/2025
Shri Aditya Raj ... Petitioner
Versus
The State ... Respondent
For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
For the State : Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar
Heard on : 09.12.2025
Judgment on : 11.12.2025
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
1. The revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of proceedings in G. R. Case No. 887 of 2025 in FIR No. 161 of 2023 dated 12.09.2023 P.S. Pahargaon under Sections 447/323/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code filed against the petitioner/accused person and for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class - I at Port Blair.
2. Vide the order under challenge dated 13th August, 2025, the learned Magistrate held as follows :
"It is submitted from the side of the accused persons that the alleged incident took place at the 2 2025:CHC-PB:73 premises in which the accused is also having legal right and as such the accused is entitled to be discharged regarding the allegation of trespass. Moreover, there is no injury report in support of the allegation of causing of hurt. Accordingly, the accused is also liable to be discharged.
The Ld. A.P.P. submitted that whether the property in which the incident took place is the property of the accused or not is a matter of trial. Moreover, causing of hurt may be proved even without proving a medical/injury report. Accordingly, the matter may be fixed for consideration of charge.
The issues raised by the accused persons are all subject matter of adducing evidence. Accordingly, the prayer for discharge of the accused is hereby rejected."
3. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that G. R. Case has been initiated on the basis of a written complaint filed on 12th September, 2023.
4. The allegations in the written complaint are that, on 11th September, 2023 the complainant was given possession of the suit property by the Nazir/Court Officer with police protection on the basis of an order dated 23rd August, 2023 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Other Execution Case No. 06 of 2024.
3
2025:CHC-PB:73
5. The complainant herein in the written complaint has stated that the accused persons in the present case came to the suit/disputed property on 12th September, 2023 and assaulted the complainant and his cousin brother and others.
6. It has been further alleged that they forcibly entered into the property, occupied it and threatened to kill them.
7. It is further stated that the accused persons allegedly tried to dispossess the complainant from the suit property. It is admitted in the written complaint that the complainant has come to know that the brother of the accused person Dharma Raj, who is also an accused, is occupying the property illegally.
8. As such, it appears from the written complaint that prima facie total possession of the disputed property has not been handed over to the complainant. Further considering that police protection was allowed by the Court, it is for the police to file the report before the Executing Court as to the satisfaction of the execution and subsequent steps to be taken.
9. It appears that the complainant has stated that the incident in the present case occurred on the next date and that brother of Dharma Raj (accused) was in illegal possession of the property.
4
2025:CHC-PB:73
10. From the pleadings in the revisional application it appears that the case of the accused/petitioner is that the property in their possession is not part of the suit property and as such, they cannot be evicted from the same.
11. It is further case of the accused/petitioners that they are in possession of their property on the strength of a valid sale agreement and that the decree in favour of the complainant does not include the property which is in possession of the accused/petitioners.
12. The case of the prosecution before the learned Trial Court was that the petitioners/accused persons have allegedly violated the order of the Civil Court. The copies of medical papers annexed to the revisional application show that "no injury was seen" by the doctor who examined the parties.
13. The offences alleged herein are under Sections 447/323/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code - provides for punishment for criminal trespass. In the present case it appears from the written complaint itself that, one of the accused persons is admittedly in possession of the disputed property though alleged to be illegal, which the accused persons claim to be the owners by way of purchase. As such, the ingredients required to constitute the offence of criminal 5 2025:CHC-PB:73 trespass is prima facie is not made out against the accused persons.
15. Though Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code does not require an injury report in support of the such allegations, it is apparent that there is admittedly a property dispute between the parties and a decree in a civil suit has already been passed and more so, the medical report shows that "no injuries were seen" by the doctor who examined the complainant and as such, the ingredients required to constitute the said the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not prima facie made out against the accused persons.
16. Consequently the offences alleged under Sections 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code also are thus not prima facie made out against the accused persons as these offences arise out of the offences/incidents discussed earlier.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the dispute between the parties is a private property dispute and civil in nature, with no evidence showing the ingredients of any criminal offence being prima facie made out against the accused persons herein.
18. This Court relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others - versus - Bhajan Lal 6 2025:CHC-PB:73 and Others reported in 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335 : 1992 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 426, para 102 :-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, thought it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the 7 2025:CHC-PB:73 commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
The facts in the present case falls under Clause (3) and (7) of para 102, in Bhajan Lal (Supra).
19. This Court further relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalit Chaturvedi & others - versus - State 8 2025:CHC-PB:73 of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in Criminal Appeal No. of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13485 of 2023), wherein the Court held :-
"......the High Court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court, as it serves a salutary purpose viz. a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years, when no criminal offence is made out. It is one thing to say that a case has been made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not be quashed, but another thing to say that a person must undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has been made out in the complaint. This Court in V.Y.Jose (supra) placed reliance on several earlier decisions in "Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI", "Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.", "Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal" and "All Cargo Movers (I) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain".
20. In Naresh Kumar and Another - versus - The State of Karnataka and Another reported in Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 1570 of 2021), the Supreme Court held :-
"6.In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent 9 2025:CHC-PB:73 powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held:
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."
(emphasis supplied) Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a 10 2025:CHC-PB:73 civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.".
21. This Court further relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors - versus - State of Karnataka and Another reported in Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8626 of 2024), wherein the Court held :-
"43. In Usha Chakraborty v State of West Bengal, (2023) 15 SCC 135, while quashing the FIR therein and further proceedings based thereon, it was observed '... the factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature.'".
22. Considering the said facts and on considering the fact that the dispute in the present case is clearly a private property dispute civil in nature permitting such a case to proceed will be the clear abuse of the process of law/Court.
23. The criminal revision is thus allowed.
24. The proceedings in G. R. Case No. 887 of 2025 in FIR No. 161 of 2023 dated 12.09.2023 P.S. Pahargaon under Sections 11 2025:CHC-PB:73 447/323/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and charge sheet No. 07 of 2023 dated 12.09.2023 filed against the accused person including the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class - I at Port Blair are hereby quashed and set aside against the accused/petitioner herein namely Aditya Raj.
25. The revisional application stands disposed of along with all connected application, if any.
26. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.
27. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
[ SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. ]