Authority: Calcutta High Court, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, Appellate Side

Order Date: 24 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – nine close family members (including women, toddlers, and elderly relatives) represented by Mr. Guddu Singh; Respondent – State of West Bengal represented by Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee, and Mr. Narayan Debnath; Opposite parties – Smt. Kavita Kumari (deceased employee’s widow) and her husband, an Income Tax Department employee.
  • Background: The deceased, a South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) employee, died on 18 June 2021. Under SECL welfare rules, a dependent is eligible for compassionate employment upon submission of a No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) from all other heirs. The petitioners sought an NOC for petitioner No. 5; the opposite parties refused and allegedly threatened criminal action.
  • Incident (04‑Oct‑2021): Petitioners visited the opposite parties’ residence at Aayakar Abasan, Durgapur, to request the NOC. Opposite party No. 2 had already applied for compassionate employment on 07‑Sep‑2021. Opposite party No. 3 allegedly boasted of influence over police. Police arrived; opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint alleging the petitioners entered armed with iron rods and wooden sticks, assaulted opposite party No. 3, attempted to kill him, and stole a gold mangalsutra.
  • Charges: Initial charge sheet (No. 415/21) filed on 30‑Nov‑2021 under IPC §§ 448, 323, 325, 307, 379, 506 read with § 34. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast‑Track Court, Durgapur) on 04‑Sep‑2023 observed that injuries were “simple” and § 307 (attempt to murder) did not apply.
  • Further Investigation: A pen‑drive (exhibit‑D) containing video (VID‑20211004‑WA0002) was sent to CFSL, Kolkata. CFSL confirmed the video was continuous and unedited. A supplementary charge sheet (No. 270/24) dated 20‑Jun‑2024 added § 120B IPC; charges were framed on 02‑Aug‑2024. The case is presently at the evidence stage.
  • Contentions: Petitioners’ counsel argued abuse of process, malicious inclusion of § 307, and that the FIR was fabricated. The State relied on case diary, complaint, injury reports, witness statements (e.g., Shivram Ghosh, Laxman Nunia), and CFSL video authenticity.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) on quashing abusive proceedings; M/s Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021) on misuse of criminal process in civil disputes; Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) on avoiding omnibus allegations; Suresh v. State of U.P. (2001) on common intention; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) on necessity of judicial mind; Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) on elements of criminal intimidation.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held the continuation of the criminal proceeding constitutes abuse of the judicial process under Section 482 CrPC.
  • C.R.R. No. 1632 of 2024 is allowed; the entire criminal proceeding (G.R. Case No. 1666 of 2021, later renumbered 1489 of 23 and Sessions Case No. 19 of 2022) pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, along with the charge sheets and all consequential orders, is quashed and set aside for all petitioners.
  • Interim orders, if any, are vacated.
  • No order as to costs.
  • The judgment is to be transmitted to the Trial Court with records; case diary to be returned to State counsel; certified copy to be supplied upon request.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Family Dispute, Abuse of Process