Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court Failure To Comply With Statutory Mandate Under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC Renders Ex Parte Injunction Unsustainable: Karnataka High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Withdrawal of Cabinet's Recommendations for Legislative Council Nominations Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Absence of Premeditation and Motive Desertion Means More Than Physical Separation, Includes Willful Neglect: Delhi High Court Director’s Liability Under Section 138 NI Act Ends with Resignation: Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Former Director in Cheque Dishonor Case No Proof, No Ownership: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Baseless Inheritance Suit Judicial Orders of Civil Courts Not Amenable to Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction: Patna High Court Chastity of a Woman Is a Priceless Possession; Unfounded Allegations Justify Wife’s Right to Live Separately: Orissa High Court Temporary Injunction Denied Based on Unstamped and Unregistered Agreement: Madhya Pradesh High Court Temple Surplus Funds Cannot Be Used for Shopping Complex Construction: Madras High Court Bail | Evidence Is Primarily Documentary And Already Recovered, Custodial Interrogation Of The Accused Is Not Necessary: Kerala High Court Delhi High Court Directs Respondents to Secure ₹157.75 Crores in Gas Supply Dispute Under Section 9 of Arbitration Act Arrest of Woman Post-Sunset Without Prior Judicial Permission Illegal: Bombay High Court

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.

Similar News