Criminal Law Cannot Be Used as Weapon of Personal Vendetta: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR and Charge-Sheet for Lack of Specific Allegations

"Even if allegations are taken at face value, they do not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioner" — Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling under its criminal revisional jurisdiction, quashed an FIR and charge-sheet pending against a petitioner. The Court, speaking through Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), held that continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of any specific allegations or evidence would amount to a gross abuse of judicial process and jeopardize the petitioner's career and reputation.

The Court decisively invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), reaffirming the well-settled legal principle that mere filing of a charge-sheet does not preclude judicial intervention to secure the ends of justice, especially where the materials do not prima facie disclose commission of any offence.

“No iota of material can be found against the petitioner besides ridiculing and shouting; this cannot attract criminal charges”

Origin of the Case: Advocate's Complaint Turns Into Criminal Prosecution

The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by an advocate (Opposite Party No. 2) practicing in the Calcutta High Court, who alleged that on November 23, 2021, while leaving his chamber, he was ridiculed and verbally abused by a group of individuals including the petitioner, Subhrangshu Bera. The incident led to the registration of FIR No. 344 of 2021 at Mohanpur Police Station under Sections 341, 323, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner and co-accused had insulted him, resisted his attempts to speak with them, and called their parents who allegedly made threats. Although Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) was initially included, the charge-sheet subsequently dropped the provision, citing lack of medical evidence or injury report. Despite this, the police proceeded with charges under Sections 341, 506, and 34 IPC, naming the petitioner as Accused No. 2.

Can Proceedings Be Quashed Post Charge-Sheet?

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet on grounds that:

1. No specific overt act had been attributed to him;
2. Allegations were vague, omnibus, and lacked the basic ingredients required to constitute the alleged offences;
3. The criminal case was a product of malicious prosecution, stemming from personal vendetta; and
4. Even post charge-sheet, the inherent powers of the High Court could be exercised where the continuation of proceedings would be manifestly unjust.

The State and the complainant, however, opposed the application, arguing that prima facie case had been established through the investigation and that the stage of trial was appropriate to examine factual disputes. They also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948, to argue that the petition was not maintainable due to the absence of the cognizance order being placed on record.

“Continuation of proceedings would be manifestly unjust and constitute gross abuse of process” – Court finds no actionable offence against petitioner

Court’s Analysis and Findings: A Case of Vague Allegations and Procedural Misuse

After a detailed analysis of the FIR, charge-sheet, witness statements, and precedents, Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) came to a categorical conclusion that no specific act had been alleged against the petitioner that would meet the threshold of any offence under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation) or 34 (common intention) IPC.

The Court noted:

“From the above nature of the allegation, it is glaringly visible that there was no incident of physical assault over the de-facto complainant… The prima facie allegations… are found to be an exaggerated version of the incident.”

Significantly, the Court emphasized that the police itself dropped Section 323 at the stage of filing the charge-sheet due to absence of medical or injury report. This, in the Court's view, weakened the prosecution's case substantially.

Furthermore, the Court underlined the importance of specific attribution of roles in criminal prosecutions, especially in cases involving multiple accused. Merely being present at the scene or engaging in general behavior like "shouting or ridiculing" was held to be insufficient to trigger criminal liability.

“No iota of materials can be found against the present petitioner, besides ridiculing and shouting towards the complainant... No reason has been assigned as to why the person standing outside the chamber of the complainant... suddenly started shouting.”

Inherent Powers and Precedents: Bhajan Lal Principles Applied

Referring extensively to State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court held that the present case clearly fell within the illustrative categories laid down for quashing, namely that:

• The allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not disclose a cognizable offence;
• The continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court;
• The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) must be invoked to secure the ends of justice.

In particular, the Court reaffirmed the classic principle laid down in R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, 1960 SCR (3) 311:

"It would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the Criminal Court to be issued against the accused person."

The Court also cited the Supreme Court's rulings in Iqbal @ Bala vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, and Neeta Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh to stress that inherent powers are not curtailed merely because a charge-sheet is filed, and that the totality of circumstances, not just formal allegations, must be assessed.

Rebutting the Opposite Party's Objections on Maintainability

Addressing the argument based on Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, the Court clarified that the principles laid down in that case pertained to petitions under Article 226, whereas the present case was a purely criminal revisional application under Section 482 CrPC.

“This Court is unable to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the Learned Advocate of the Opposite Party no. 2 in this regard.”

Justice Chatterjee concluded that the non-availability of the cognizance order on record did not bar the Court from exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC, especially when no ingredients of the alleged offences were established on record.

Vindication of Individual Liberty Over Vexatious Litigation

Allowing the petition, the Court remarked that:

"If this proceeding is allowed to be continued, it would be manifestly unjust and would be gross abuse of the process of Court.”

Accordingly, the FIR No. 344 of 2021 and the corresponding charge-sheet pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Dantan, West Midnapur, were quashed and all connected applications stood disposed of.

Date of Decision: December 23, 2025