Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Palash Debnath vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 1 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 615 of 2023
Palash Debnath
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suman Majumder.
For the State : Mr. Sandip Chakraborty,
Mr. Tirupati Mukherjee.
Hearing concluded on : 01.08.2025
Judgment on : 01.09.2025
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The criminal revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 4002 of 2022 arising out of Gaighata P.S. Case No. 1067 of 2022 dated November 13, 2022 under Sections 447/354C/354D/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bongaon.
2. The petitioner's case is that on November 13, 2022, the opposite party no. 2 herein lodged a First Information Report with the Officer-in-Charge Gaighata P.S., therein alleging commission of offences punishable under 2 Sections 447/354C/354D/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner on the allegations as canvassed therein.
3. Accordingly, the instant proceeding being Gaighata P.S. Case No. 1067 of 2022 dated November 13, 2022 was registered for an investigation under Sections 447/354C/354D/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The allegations in the written complaint (in Bengali), on the basis of which the proceedings in the present case was initiated, against the petitioner are as follows:-
"Ami bigoto janmosutreh Madan Colony name eh sarkari jaygay bosobas korchi. Amar jaygar samne Jessore road oh pichone Ruhidas Debnath er sampatti. Uni ekjan probhabh shali baktee. Ami Corona kal theke kaaj hariye bohu kostteh amar paribar niya bosobas korchi.
Prai Ruhidas Debnath o tar putro Palash Debnath ei basti theke uthe jawar jonno bivinno prakar bhoi o barir mahila ke kuruchikor montobbo o angobhongi koreh. Aj 13.11.2022 sokal 10 tar dikeh amar ghorer pichoneh dariye purush ango ber kore amar stree ke dekhiye prossrab korte thake ebong choke o mukh diye kichu bajeh ingeet kore Palan Debnath, son of -Ruhi Das Debnath, gram, post office ar thana-Gaighata, District-North 24 Parganas. Bisoyti amar stree amakeh ghorer moddhe giye janay. Tokhon ei ghotonati parar lokehder ami janai. Thokon para pratibeshira takeh eshe atkai ebong gramer panchayat prodhankeh janano hoi ebong seh soh sarireh esch prosasonke khobor dey. Oto eb mohasay, ami ebong amar paribar jiban hanir asonka korchi. Jehetu Ruhidas Debnath oh Palash Debnath probhabsali bekti.
Otoeb mohasay ami o amar paribaar jate sustho bhabe bosobas korte pari ebong amar streer proti je kuruchikor 3 angobhongi koreche tar sustho bichar korileh ami apnar kache chirokritoggo thakibo.
Sd/-
Gopal Roy"
5. The petitioner has defended the said allegations by stating that by way of Deed dated December 20, 2005, the father of the petitioner namely, Shri Ruhidas Debnath is the absolute owner of the piece and parcel of the land situated at Mouza- 27, Rampur, and Khatian No- 3795 comprised in Dag Nos. 3009, 3011, 3065, 3066, 3065/3726, 3010/3727, 3008/3729, 3011/3734, whereas the mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Arati Debnath by way of Deed dated November 29, 1989 is the absolute owner of the piece and parcel of the land situated at Mouza- 27, Rampur and Khatian No- 1500 comprised in Dag Nos. 3009 3010, 3011, 3010/3727, 3008/3728, 3008/3729, 3009/3730, 3011/3734, and Mouza- 28, Gaighata Khatian No- 526 comprised Dag No. 59.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the opposite party is an active member of a political party and an illegal occupant of the National Highway-112(35) which is adjacent to the land of the parents of the petitioner more specifically, Dag No. 3008/3728.
7. It is further stated that the complainant along with his men and agents were carrying out illegal and unauthorized constructions over Plot No.3008, Khatian No.3698 at Mouja Rampur under Jaleswar II Gram Panchayat, which is situated just opposite to the plots which belong to the parents of the petitioner.
4
8. On July 04, 2019, after coming to learn about such illegal construction, the petitioner filed an application before the Executive Assistant/Secretary, the Public Information Officer under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act") therein seeking information as to whether there was any sanctioned plan in respect of such construction.
9. By way of a Memo bearing No.Jal-II/807/2019 dated July 29, 2019, the Prodhan, Jaleswar-II Gram Panchayat replied to the query of the petitioner under the RTI Act and furnished information that no building plan had been approved by the office of the concerned authority.
10. By way of another Memo bearing No. Jal-II/807/2019 dated July 29, 2019, the Executive Assistant Jaleswar-II Gram Panchayat in reply to the query of the petitioner, informed that no approval to any building plan had been given from the concerned office.
11. On September 12, 2019, the petitioner had drawn the attention of the Prodhan, Jaleswar-II Gram Panchayat about such illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out and requested him to take step to look into the matter on an urgent basis. However, the said letter fell into deaf ears.
12. No action was taken by the authority concerned.
13. On account of such inaction, on October 21, 2019, the petitioner wrote to the Block Development Officer, Gaighata Block and ventilated his grievance about such illegal and unauthorized construction. 5
14. On November 06, 2019 and November 30, 2019, the petitioner had sent reminder letters to the concerned authorities requesting for demolition of the illegal construction.
15. Lastly vide letter dated December 12, 2019, the petitioner again requested the concerned authorities to take appropriate steps into the matter.
16. On December 19, 2019, the parents of the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Hon'ble Court which was registered as W.P.A. No.24085(W) of 2019.
17. The said writ petition being WPA No. 24085(W) of 2019 was taken up for hearing, when after hearing, vide Order dated February 21, 2022, the Court was inter alia pleased to direct the concerned authorities to take the following steps:-
"a) An inspection shall be conducted. Such inspection shall be held in the presence of the petitioner and the respondents within three weeks. Advance notice of the inspection shall be served upon the petitioner and the respondents and all other interested parties. If the parties are not available to accept notice, the authorities shall affix the notice of hearing and inspection at conspicuous places in their respective premises.
b) In case, it is found on preliminary inspection that there may be reasons to believe that the construction was without permission and was continuing, the authorities may take such interim measures by stopping such construction.
c) The report of such inspection shall be prepared along with the sketch map, indicating the extent and nature of unauthorized construction, if any.
d) Such report shall be handed over to the parties.6
e) A hearing shall be given to the petitioner and the respondents. The parties must also be allowed to furnish their written objection/version to the said report and adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions before the competent authority. All points raised by either party, will be decided.
f) A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the parties. On the basis of what transpires at the hearing and during inspection, the proceedings shall be reached to its logical conclusion in terms of the statute. The court has not gone into the merits of the claims and the issues involved shall be decided independently.
The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order."
18. Vide the said order it was directed that the petitioner along with respondent was to be heard and reasoned order was to be passed. It is stated that the said order was not complied with and the private respondent continued the construction work. The parents of the petitioner then filed an application for contempt for deliberate disobedience of the order of the High Court, registered as C.P.A.Ν No. 996 of 2022.
19. The parents of the petitioner then filed another writ application before the High Court, registered as WPA 18171 of 2021. During pendency of the writ application, new construction was being carried out and, as such, father of the petitioner lodged a General Diary with the Officer-in- Charge, Gaighata P.S. which was diarized as G.D.E. No. 1052 of 2022 dated May 17, 2022. On the self same date, the father of the petitioner also wrote a letter to the National Highway-112(35) authorities and 7 incorporating such development a CAN application being CAN 1 of 2022 was filed in the writ application.
20. On November 13, 2022, when the petitioner went to visit the plots of the parents of the petitioner, a mob led by the Prodhan, Gram Panchayat Jaleswar-II along with the opposite party no. 2 and Dilip Das all the interested parties clubbed together along with friends/agents/club members/acquaintances, had manhandled and assaulted the petitioner brutally with intention to murder him. The petitioner was taken unconscious to the nearby government hospital, at Chandpara BPHC, Gaighata Block and after being medically treated, he went to the local police station for lodging a complaint. At the police station, the petitioner was surprised to find the Prodhan, Gram Panchayat Jaleswar-II and the opposite party no. 2 herein. On the contrary, the Prodhan, Gram Panchayat, Jaleswar-II by misusing his position has initiated the instant proceeding being G.R. Case No. 4002 of 2022 arising out of Gaighata P.S. Case No. 1067 of 2022 dated November 13, 2022 under Sections 447/354C/354D/34 of the IPC pending before the learned ACJM, which is counter to the writ petitions so filed by the parents of the petitioner being WPA 24085 of 2019 and WPA 18171 of 2021.
21. The complaint lodged by the petitioner was subsequently registered as Gaighata P.S. Case No. 1068 of 2022 dated November 13, 2022.
22. The writ application being WPA 18171 of 2021was subsequently allowed wherein the High Court directed the National Highway Authorities to take necessary steps for removal of unauthorized construction. 8
23. It is stated that as such, the present criminal case has been registered as a counter blast to the action taken by the petitioner and his family members regarding the continuous unauthorized construction being made by the complainant herein.
24. The State has placed the case diary, wherein it appears that the east side of the complainant's house is the house of the petitioner herein. One statement under Section 161 is with the record.
25. It appears from the said statement that admittedly a property dispute exists between the parties. It also appears that the petitioner allegedly has been trying to evict the unauthorized occupants from certain land. The statement of the alleged victim has recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
26. The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate notes that the alleged victim has reiterated the contents of the written complaint on which the FIR was lodged. The alleged victim has admitted that they lived on a property which belongs to the PWD and that the petitioner herein is trying to evict them from the said property and the victim's statement that as such they apprehended being dispossessed from the property which admittedly belongs to the PWD.
27. Hence the writ application.
28. Written notes filed by both the parties.
29. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-
9
(i) Mahmood Ali & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2023 (10) SCALE.
(ii) Iqbal alias Bala & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2023) 8 SCC 734.
(iii) Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. Stae of U.P. & Ors., (2023) 11 S.C.R. 58.
(iv) Vineet Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2017) 13 SCC 369.
30. The Supreme Court in Rikhab Birani & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823, decided on 16.04.2025, held:-
"15. In Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court quoted an earlier decision in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, wherein, referring to Section 420 of the IPC, it was observed that the offence under the said Section requires the following ingredients to be satisfied:
"18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows:
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property."
16. Reference was also made to the decision in V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat and it was observed:
"7. Similar elucidation by this Court in "V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat", explicitly states that a contractual dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of a 10 criminal proceeding. The ingredient of „cheating‟, as defined under Section 415 of the IPC, is existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of making initial promise or representation thereof, from the very beginning of the formation of contract. Further, in the absence of the averments made in the complaint petition wherefrom the ingredients of the offence can be found out, 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"."
17. This Court, in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, highlighted the fine distinction between the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, observing that the two are antithetical in nature and cannot coexist simultaneously. Police officers and courts must carefully apply their minds to determine whether the allegations genuinely constitute the specific offence alleged.
18. In Kunti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court referred to Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab wherein it was observed that a breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep a promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. Thus, the dishonest intention on the part of the party who is alleged to have committed the offence of cheating should be established at the time of entering into the transaction with the complainant, otherwise the offence of cheating is not established or made out.
19. It is the duty and obligation of the court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing process, particularly when the matter is essentially of civil nature. The prevalent impression that civil remedies, being time- consuming, do not adequately protect the interests of 11 creditors or lenders should be discouraged and rejected as criminal procedure cannot be used to apply pressure. Failure to do so results in the breakdown of the rule of law and amounts to misuse and abuse of the legal process.
20. In yet another case, again arising from criminal proceedings initiated in the State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court was constrained to note recurring cases being encountered wherein parties repeatedly attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious complaints, camouflaging allegations that are ex facie outrageous or are pure civil claims. These attempts must not be entertained and should be dismissed at the threshold. Reference was made to a judgment of this Court in Thermax Limited v. K.M. Johny, which held that courts should be watchful of the difference between civil and criminal wrongs, though there can be situations where the allegation may constitute both civil and criminal wrongs. Further, there has to be a conscious application of mind on these aspects by the Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave consequences of setting criminal proceedings in motion. Though the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set criminal proceedings into motion. The Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence on record and may even put questions to the complainant/investigating officer etc. to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations. The summoning order has to be passed when the complaint or chargesheet discloses an offence and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. The summoning order should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course.
21. Lastly, we would refer to another detailed judgment of this Court in Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which draws out the ingredients required to establish an offence under Sections 406, 415, 420, 503 and 506 of the IPC in the following terms:
"36. An offence under Section 406 of the IPC requires entrustment, which carries the implication that a person handing over any property or on whose behalf the property is handed over, continues to be the owner of the said property. Further, the person handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking the property to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A normal transaction of sale or exchange of money/consideration does not amount to entrustment.12
Clearly, the charge/offence of Section 406 IPC is not even remotely made out.
37. The chargesheet states that the offence under Section 420 is not made out. The offence of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC requires dishonest inducement, delivering of a property as a result of the inducement, and damage or harm to the person so induced. The offence of cheating is established when the dishonest intention exists at the time when the contract or agreement is entered, for the essential ingredient of the offence of cheating consists of fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him to deliver any property, to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he had not been deceived. As per the investigating officer, no fraudulent and dishonest inducement is made out or established at the time when the agreement was entered.
38. An offence of criminal intimidation arises when the accused intendeds to cause alarm to the victim, though it does not matter whether the victim is alarmed or not. The intention of the accused to cause alarm must be established by bringing evidence on record. The word „intimidate‟ means to make timid or fearful, especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats. The threat communicated or uttered by the person named in the chargesheet as an accused, should be uttered and communicated by the said person to threaten the victim for the purpose of influencing her mind. The word „threat‟ refers to the intent to inflict punishment, loss or pain on the other. Injury involves doing an illegal act.
39. This Court in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, had referred to Section 506 which prescribes punishment for the offence of „criminal intimidation‟ as defined in Section 503 of the IPC, to observe that the offence under Section 503 requires that there must be an act of threating another person with causing an injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. This threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or omit to do an act which he is entitled to do. Mere expression of any words without any intent to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring home an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. The material and evidence must be placed on record to show that the threat was made with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant, or to cause them to do, or omit to do an act. Considering the statutory mandate, offence under Section 13 506 is not shown even if we accept the allegation as correct."
22. Significantly, this Court in Sharif Ahmed (supra) cautioned courts to check such attempts of making out a criminal case on the basis of vague and ex facie false assertions."
31. In Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993, Criminal Appeal No(s). ......... of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 39 of 2022), the Supreme Court held:-
"15. This Court has an occasion to consider the ambit and scope of the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings in Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2017) 13 SCC 369 decided on 31st March, 2017. It may be useful to refer to paras 22, 23 and 41 of the above judgment where the following was stated:
"22. Before we enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC vested in the High Court. Section 482 CrPC saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
23. This Court time and again has examined the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the following has been stated :
„7. ... In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.14
The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.‟
41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which is to the following effect :
„102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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.‟ Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its 15 jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings."
16. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) 335 as under :
"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 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give 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, though 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 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 16 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."
17. The principles culled out by this Court have consistently been followed in the recent judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC
315."
32. It appears that there is a dispute relating to alleged unauthorised construction on government land made by the complainant. Several representation and complaints made by the petitioner to various authorities, caused problems to the complainant, who prima facie has grievance against the petitioner.
33. Several cases have been filed by the petitioner and his family against the complainant.
34. The dispute is clearly a civil (personal) dispute.
35. The present case falls under category 1, 3 and 7 of Para 102 of Bhajan Lal (Supra).
17
36. The materials on record, do not prima facie show presence of the ingredients required to constitute any of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein and as such the proceeding in this case is liable to be quashed in the interest of Justice and to prevent an abuse of the process of law.
37. CRR 615 of 2023 is allowed.
38. The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 4002 of 2022 arising out of Gaighata P.S. Case No. 1067 of 2022 dated November 13, 2022 under Sections 447/354C/354D/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bongaon, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner Palash Debnath.
39. Connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
40. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
41. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court.
42. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously after due compliance.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)