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

Share:
medical bank pay Run Payment absence acquisition Police judicial Rape Electricity death justice Driver Foreigners passport claims Affidavits husband Assault Knowledge Teacher cbi Judicial evidence Financial evidence certified Evidence Electricity Principal Evidence Calcutta evidence Police public Absence landaim teachers cheque plan Criminal boycott

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

Download Judgment

Share: