Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Siddhartha Ray @ Siddhartha Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 April, 2026
07.04.2026
Ct. No.42
D/L 36
Mujahid
CRR 1124 of 2025
Siddhartha Ray @ Siddhartha Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Shataroop Purakayastha
Ms. Rajorna Masumder
...for the petitioner
Mr. Arindam Sen
Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury
...for the State
Mr. Sayan Mukherjee
Ms. Tamoghna Chatterjee
...for the opposite party no.2
1.
Present petition has been filed for quashing of charge-
sheet no. 72 of 2021 dated 31.03.2021 under Sections 341/
323/354/509/506 of the IPC and the entire proceedings being
A.C.G.R. no. 422 of 2021 arising out of Haridevpur P.S. Case
No.27 dated 30.01.2021.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present proceedings are totally abuse of the process of the Court
and is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner
invite the attention of the Court to the complaint of opposite
party no.2 dated 30th January, 2021 on the basis of which FIR
no.27/2021 was lodged. Learned counsel submits that the bare
perusal of the complaint makes it clear that no offence under
Section 354 IPC or other offences are made out. Thereafter
learned counsel has taken the court to the 161 Cr.P.C.
statements of Anuva Ganguly, Swaraj Ganguly, Ria Guha, Arnab
2
Guha and Partah Pratim Bhattacharjee. Learned counsel has
taken pains to invite the attention of the Court to the statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Ria Guha to buttress his
contention that there are material contradictions in the
testimony of prosecution witnesses which reveals the mala fide
intention. Reliance has also been placed on the 164 Cr.P.C.
statement of the de facto complainant.
3. Learned counsel submits that not only there are material
contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, the ingredients of offence are also not
made out. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sumit Kr.
Gupta vs. State of West Bengal, 2014 Supreme (Online)(Cal) 18
as well as Mushtaq Ahmad Sha & Ors. vs. UT of J&K & Ors.,
2025 Supreme (Online)(J&K) 1145. Learned counsel submits
merely allegation of pushing a woman by hand does not fulfill
the ingredient of Section 354 of the IPC. Learned counsel also
submits that mere assault or use of criminal force to a woman
simplicitor, without there being any intention on the part of the
accused to outrage the modesty of the women, would not fall
within the definition of the offence punishable under Section
354 of the IPC. Learned counsel submits that therefore the
present proceedings may be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that the prosecution witnesses have
made a consistent statement. Learned counsel for the State has
3
also placed translated copy of statement recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. of de facto complainant and Ms. Ria Guha. Learned
counsel submits that all the statements have duly been
corroborated by the medical evidence. Learned counsel further
submits that at this stage the court cannot meticulously
examine the probative value of the prosecution witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also
vehemently opposed the present revision petition and submits
that the arguments being raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner have no substance. Learned counsel submits that this
Court at the stage of quashing cannot examine threadbare
examination of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and
the material placed by the prosecution. Leaned counsel submits
that such exercise can be conducted only after the conclusion of
the trial.
6. It is a settled proposition that scope of interference under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is though wide, but consistently it has been
laid that the same has to be exercised with grave
circumspection. In this regard it is advantageous to refer to the
State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa & Anr., 2002 (1)
Supreme 192, wherein it was inter alia held as under:-
“As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very
plenitude of the power requires great caution in its
exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in
exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest
Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are
incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not
been collected and produced before the Court and the
4issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude
and cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can
be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court
will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceeding at any stage. [See: The Janata Dal etc. vs. H.S.
Chowdhary and Ors. etc. (AIR 1993 SC 892), Dr. Raghubir
Saran vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (AIR 1964 SC 1)]. It would
not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the
complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to
determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and
on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the
proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to
assess the material before it and conclude that the
complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding
instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to
quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where
the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous,
vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of which
cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to
the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not,
however, necessary that there should be meticulous
analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the
case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint
has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on
consideration of the allegations in the light of the
statement made on oath of the complainant that the
ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and
there is no material to show that the complaint is mala
fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be
no justification for interference by the High Court. When
an information is lodged at the police station and an
offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant
would be of secondary importance. It is the material
collected during the investigation and evidence led in
Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The
allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no
consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for
quashing the proceeding. [See: Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R.
Prassnna Kumar and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 494), State of
Bihar & Anr. vs. P.P. Sharma I.A.S. & Anr. (1992
Suppl. (1) SCC 222), Rupan Deo Bajaj (Mrs.) & Anr. vs.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. (1995 [6] SCC 194), State of
Kerala & Ors. vs. O.C. Kuttan & Ors. (1999 [2] SCC 651),
State of U.P. vs. O.P. Sharma (1996 [7] SCC 705), Rashmi
Kumar (Smt.) vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997 [2] SCC
397), Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and
Anr. (1999 [8] SCC 728), Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of
Delhi and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 1216)].”
5
7. The Constitutional Courts have time and again
emphasized that the testimony of the witnesses are to be
examined for the purpose of finding it is truthfulness only after
the witnesses have been put to the rigour of the cross-
examination. The discretion of Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be
exercised if the case on its face value is frivolous or vexatious
and no case is made out. The court at this stage cannot go into
the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the
prosecution in the charge-sheet. Reliance may be placed upon
Manik B vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr., SLP (Crl) No.
2924 of 2023.
8. It is no more res integra that the court, at this stage,
cannot go into the veracity of the allegations and material
collected by the police during the course of investigation. The
court, at this stage, is only required to see that whether any
sufficient material is available to proceed further against
accused for which accused is required to be tried or not. The
issue whether the criminal proceedings are malicious or not is
required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Reliance
can be placed upon Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan
Singh Etc., 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 334.
9. The Court while exercising the discretion under Section
482 Cr.P.C. cannot resort to a power so as to cut short the
proceedings without affording the prosecution giving an
opportunity of conducting the trial. The reliability or
genuineness of allegations made in the FIR of the complaint are
to be tested on the basis of the evidence.
6
10. The Court considers that there is no substance in the
arguments being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present
revision petition is dismissed.
12. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)
