Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme 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.

Latest Legal News