Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mandira Debnath vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 18 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.
CRR 4950 OF 2023
MANDIRA DEBNATH
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kunal Gaguly, Adv.
Mr. Tirthankar Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Madhurima Sarkar, Adv.
Ms. Urmi Biswas, Adv.
For the Opposite
Party no. 2 : Ms. Sreeparna Ghosh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P.
Mr. Amita Gaur, Adv.
Mr. Bikram Mitra, Adv.
Last heard on : 16.12.2025
Judgement on : 18.02.2026
Uploaded on : 18.02.2026
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-
1.
This revisional application has been filed for quashing of the proceeding
arising out of charge sheet no. 222/23 dated May 30, 2023 under Section
Page 1 of 5
448/325/354B 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with
Nabadwip P.S. case no. 135/2023 dated 13.03.2023. under Section
448/325/354B 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 now pending before the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Cass, Nabadwip Court.
Brief fact of the facts
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is a lady constable in
Chapra Police Station, Nadia, a married lady having her matrimonial house at
Nabadwip lives with her parents and married sister at her matrimonial house.
The uncle of the petitioner being Opposite Party no. 2 herein and aunt resides
at adjacent to the house of the petitioner.
3. The Opposite Party no. 2 along with his wife with an intention to illegally evict
the present petitioner and her family from the parental house of the petitioner
and in order to grab the entire ancestral property continuously torturing her
physically and mentally since long. On March 9, 2023 at around 10 A.M. the
Opposite Party no. 2 and his wife had set fire to the dry leaves gathered
besides the premises of petitioner in absence of family members. On March 11,
2023 at around 10:30 A.M. taking advantage of the absence the petitioner and
her family members the Opposite Party no. 2 and his wife again did same thing
by setting fire to the dry leaves accumulated besides the premises of the
petitioner with an intention to burn the entire premises.
4. The further case of the petitioner that the Opposite Party no. 2 and his wife
tried to spread a false news against the parents of the petitioner for holding
them responsible for such act and also assaulted the mother and outraged
the modesty and chastity of the mother of the petitioner and disrobed her. The
father of the petitioner undergone surgery and was bed ridden at that time
Page 2 of 5
when he was also physically assaulted by the Opposite Party no. 2 with fists
and blows. The parent of the petitioner was medically treated at Maheshganj
Hospital.
5. The mother of the present petitioner had to lodge a complaint against them
before the concerned Police Station on March 13, 2023 under Section
448/323/324/354B 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been
registered at Nabadwip P.S. case no. 134/23.
The Opposite Party no. 2 as a counter blast lodged one FIR on March 13, 23
against the present petitioner under Section 448/325/354B 506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, which is registered as Nabadwip P.S. case no. 135/23.
Submission
6. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
that the complaint lodged by Opposite Party no. 2 is in respect of the self-same
incident for which the mother of the present petitioner lodged the complaint
with the false and concocted story made against the present petitioner and her
parents. On completion of the investigation the charge sheet has been
submitted in such case on May, 30, 2023. The Learned Advocate of the
petitioner filed supplementary affidavits pursuant to the direction of this court
after receiving the copy of the materials in connection with Nabadwip P.S. case
no. 135/23 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nabadwip
Court.
7. Per Contra the Learned prosecution argued that the charge-sheet submitted by
the police in connection with the complaint lodged by the Opposite Party no. 2
reflects nothing about the complaint lodged by the mother of the present
petitioner and therefore at this stage without perusing the case diary of that
Page 3 of 5
case it would not be possible to make any submission in respect of the other
case.
This case pertains to Nabadwip P.S. case no. 135/2023 which prima facie
shows certain incriminating materials and therefore when the charge sheet
has been submitted the matter should be tested before the Trial Court.
Analysis
8. Heard the submission. The charge sheet of this case has been submitted by
one ASI Jaydeb Singha at Nabadwip P.S. KPT. From the report furnished
before this Court dated December 16, 2025 it is seen that Nabadwip P.S. case
no 134/2023 was endorsed to ASI Shyamal Kumar Biswas for investigation.
The formal FIR filed in 135/23 was received by the Police Station at 12:25
hours and the general diary no 753 made on 12.25 hours. The incident
happened on March 11, 2023 at about 12.30 hours. The registration of FIR at
Nabadwip Police Station case prima facie disclose that Nabadwip P.S. no 135/
23 was lodged after the complaint was lodged by the Opposite Party no, 2
being 134/23. The allegations levelled against each other are almost similar in
nature. The written complaints filed by both parties prima facie discloses that
an incident occurred on the relevant date and time in which both parties were
involved with each other because of their long standing inimical relationship.
The nature of allegation prima facie appears to be serious since severe injuries
could have caused because of the fire.
It was observed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again that
the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR is to be exercised in a
very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother the
prosecution that is legitimate. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
Page 4 of 5
jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims and caprice. Such
power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of
rare case.
Conclusion
9. In this case it would be erroneous to assess the materials available in the case
diary and to conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with when the
complaint lodged by the present petitioner against the O.P. no. 2 in respect of
an incident occurred on same date over which the O.P. no. 2 has lodged this
instant complaint. Therefore mere filing of a complaint by the present
petitioner against the de-facto complainant cannot ipso facto be considered as
vexatious and or to be considered as sheer abuse of process of law, if the trial
is allowed to be continued.
10. Hence this Court finds no merit in allowing the prayer of the petitioner.
11. However in order to arrive at a proper decision it would be fair on the part of
the Learned Court to hear both the matter by the same Court.
12. Hence this revisional stands dismissed.
13. No order as to cost.
14. The copy of the order forwarded to the concerned court for information and
taking necessary action.
15. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to
the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]
Page 5 of 5
