Authority: Calcutta High Court

Order Date: 15 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner's revisional application: CRR 3404 of 2017 (formerly CRAN 4408 of 2017) filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Rakesh Singh, seeking quash of criminal proceedings in G.R.(S) Case No. 1592 of 2017.
  • Underlying criminal case: originated from a written complaint by Gopal Agarwal, proprietor of M/s Shree Padmawati Metaliks Private Limited (steel plant at Kalyaneswari, Burdwan), filed at Shakespeare Sarani Police Station as Case No. 283 dated 11 September 2017, alleging offences under IPC Section 387 and Arms Act Section 27.
  • Alleged incident: on 9 September 2017 at approximately 11:00 hrs, Rakesh Singh, described as a notorious local element, arrived at the complainant's residence (8, Moira Street) with associates, brandished a firearm, demanded Rs 10,00,000, slapped the complainant, pinned him to the floor, threatened to kidnap his child, ransacked the premises and fled.
  • Petitioner's defence: claims to be a social worker and Indian National Congress political leader, alleges political vendetta, asserts alibi that he was outside West Bengal from 5 September 2017 to 23 September 2017, and argues that because no money was handed over, the essential ingredient of Section 387 is absent.
  • Procedural history: no parties appeared for hearing; no adjournment prayers were filed; the matter had been pending since 2017.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the FIR’s uncontroverted allegations satisfy the prima facie requirements of IPC Section 387 and Arms Act Section 27; the fact that money was not extorted does not negate the offence.
  • The Court stated that alibi and political victimisation pleas are factual defenses that cannot be decided in a summary revision under Section 482 and must be examined by the trial court.
  • Consequently, the revisional application (CRR No. 3404 of 2017) is dismissed, the connected application (CRAN 1 of 2017, old No. CRAN 4408 of 2017) is disposed of, and any interim order stands vacated.
  • The Court directed that an urgent photostat certified copy of the order be provided to parties upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Extortion