MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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