Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 28.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Kishore Kumar Khaitan, Director of M/s Seela Devi Investment Company.
  • Opposite Party No. 2 (De facto complainant): Unnamed tenant of shop nos. 94, 94A, 97, 98 at Gaganchal Commercial Complex, 37 Dr. Abani Dutta Road, Golabari P.S., Howrah.
  • State: Represented by counsel.
  • Criminal Revision Application: CRR No. 560 of 2024 filed under Sections 397, 401, 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 09.01.2024 of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court at Howrah.
  • Original FIR & Charge‑Sheet: Golabari P.S. Case No. 37 of 1999 (registered 03.02.1999) led to Charge‑Sheet No. 129 dated 13.07.2001 under IPC Sections 120B, 448, 379, 461, 417, 109 against six accused, including the petitioner.
  • Background Facts: The de‑facto complainant alleged that Khaitan, aided by police personnel, forcibly broke padlocks of his tenanted premises, removed almirah, computer, cash (₹2,300), typewriter, documents and fittings worth >₹30,000. The complainant claimed tenancy under “M/s Khaitan Estate”, owned by Smt. Rekha Khaitan and M/s Seela Devi (partners).
  • Petitioner’s Defence: Asserted that the complainant forged a tenancy/lease document on a blank Khaitan Paper Mill Ltd. letterhead to claim property rights. Petitioner filed a separate complaint (Golabari P.S. Case No. 37/1999) for forgery, falsification and cheating, now pending before the 4th Court, Howrah.
  • Prior Judicial Findings: The Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 1101 of 2006) held no prima‑facie material of dispossession by the petitioner and directed restoration of possession to the petitioner. The High Court (CRR 1244 of 2006) quashed proceedings against Inspector‑in‑Charge Kalyan Chakraborty on the ground that allegations were baseless.
  • Subsequent Quashings: Coordinated Bench of the Calcutta High Court quashed proceedings against co‑accused Kalyan Chakraborty (order 05.10.2007) and Ashish Kumar Sen @ Bapi (order 02.05.2025).
  • Counsel Submissions: Petitioner's counsel highlighted the petitioner’s directorship, the civil nature of the underlying property dispute, death of three accused, and prior quashings. Opposite party counsel argued existence of prima‑facie case based on witness statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
  • Court’s Findings: The Court observed:
  • No material links the petitioner to the alleged offences; witnesses did not name him as an abettor.
  • The Supreme Court’s observations and the High Court’s earlier quashings negate any claim of abetment.
  • The allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose a cognizable offence (Category 3 of Bhajanlal criteria) and appear malicious (Category 7).
  • The prolonged delay (27 years) further underscores abuse of process.
  • Legal Basis for Quashal: Invoked inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., referencing State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal (1992) categories (3) and (7) for abuse of process.

Final Outcome

  • The criminal proceeding G.R. Case No. 249 of 1999 and Charge‑Sheet No. 129 dated 13.07.2001 under IPC Sections 120B/448/379/461/417/109 are quashed.
  • The impugned order dated 09.01.2024 of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court at Howrah is set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
  • All connected applications are disposed of; interim orders are vacated; case diary to be returned to State counsel; copy of judgment to be sent to the lower court.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Property Dispute, Criminal Revision