Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

No Prima Facie Case Against Petitioner for Alleged Offences - Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings in Abetment and Public Mischief Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) of the Calcutta High Court has allowed the criminal revision application CRR 1575 of 2020, quashing the proceedings against Nityananda Chatterjee @ Nitai. The case, involving allegations of abetment and spreading rumors leading to public mischief under Sections 115/505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, was dismissed on the grounds of lack of prima facie evidence.

Legal Point of Judgement: The court meticulously analyzed Sections 115 and 505(1)(b) of the IPC, concluding that the charges against the petitioner did not hold up under legal scrutiny. This judgement underscores the importance of establishing a prima facie case before proceeding with criminal charges.

Facts and Issues: Nityananda Chatterjee, accused of inciting violence and spreading inflammatory rumors against a political leader, was implicated in a case registered under Sections 115/505(1)(b) of the IPC. The allegations stemmed from voice messages indicative of a personal dispute over money and disagreements within a political party.

Court Assessment: Justice Dutt (Paul) observed that the transcriptions of the telephonic conversations revealed merely a personal dispute without any intent to cause public fear or alarm. The court stated, "The language though abusive do not contain any of the ingredients to prima facie make out the offences alleged." The judgement also referenced Supreme Court rulings in "Jamuna Singh vs State of Bihar" and "Patricia Mukhim vs State of Meghalaya & Ors.," highlighting the necessity of specific intent and elements in offences of abetment and public mischief.

Legal Principles and Law: The court clarified the requirements for establishing the charges of abetment and public mischief, emphasizing the need for specific intent as an essential ingredient of the offence.

Decision: The High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings, stating, "There thus being no prima facie case against the petitioner of the offences alleged, the present case is liable to be quashed to prevent the abuse of the process of law."

Date of Decision: February 8, 2024                    

Nityananda Chatterjee @ Nitai vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr

Latest Legal News