Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

Calcutta High Court Slams ‘Scripted’ Extortion Case: Highlights Judicial Manipulation and Suppression of Facts

24 August 2024 4:15 PM

By: sayum


The Calcutta High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings in the high-profile case involving charges of extortion, cheating, and criminal conspiracy against Dev Jyoti Chatterjee and others. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, delivering the judgment, underscored the malicious intent and misuse of the judicial process by the complainant, Abhijit Paul. The decision, rendered on August 2, 2024, highlights significant legal principles regarding the abuse of the criminal justice system.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Abhijit Paul, Managing Director of Dr. Paul’s Multispecialty Clinic Pvt. Ltd., on May 28, 2019. Paul alleged that Dev Jyoti Chatterjee, along with Shukla Chatterjee, Priya Chatterjee, and others, demanded Rs. 1.40 crore under threats of violence and death. The complaint detailed instances of intimidation and physical assault, including an incident where unidentified persons threatened Paul and his family with dire consequences if the money was not paid. The complaint led to the registration of FIR No. 420 of 2019 at Dum Dum Police Station, with subsequent charges under Sections 384, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Ghosh scrutinized the materials on record, including the statements of witnesses and the Case Diary, to determine the veracity of the allegations. The Court noted discrepancies and suppression of crucial facts by the complainant, which pointed towards a deliberate attempt to manipulate the judicial process.

The Court found that the complainant had a prior business relationship with the accused and that financial disputes existed between them. The complainant had previously undertaken to repay money in a related case in Patna, which he failed to do, prompting him to file the present complaint. The Court observed, “The complainant has scripted a series of allegations, suppressed material facts, and abused the process of Court thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice.”

Justice Ghosh emphasized the complainant’s omission of prior transactions and agreements, which were crucial to the context of the allegations. The Court highlighted that the complainant’s narrative was tailored to invoke a criminal case, disregarding the pre-existing business disputes.

The judgment elaborated on the principles of invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law. The Court referred to precedents, including Rajiv Thapar & Ors. V. Madan Lal Kapoor and Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, which outline the conditions under which the High Court can exercise its inherent powers.

Justice Ghosh remarked, “In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.”

The Calcutta High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings in this case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preventing the misuse of legal mechanisms for personal vendetta. By affirming the importance of transparency and truthfulness in legal proceedings, the judgment sends a strong message against the manipulation of the criminal justice system. This ruling is expected to serve as a precedent in safeguarding the integrity of judicial processes.

Date of Decision: August 2, 2024

Dev Jyoti Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Latest Legal News