Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 322
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s).8672 of 2024)
SAJAL BOSE ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s).8721 of 2024)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s).9826 of 2024)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The instant appeals by special leave arise out of
th
common impugned judgment and order dated 8
1
March, 2024 passed by High Court at Calcutta in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SHIPRA NARANG
Date: 2026.04.06
17:22:28 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as “High Court”.
1
Criminal Revision No. 1476 of 2023, filed on behalf of
2
Sajal Bose and Nabina Bose (Wife of Sajal Bose), and
Criminal Revision No. 2305 of 2023 filed on behalf of
3 4
Chandidas Joardar , Sautrik Joardar (Son of
Chandidas Joardar) and Pampa Joardar (Wife of
Chandidas Joardar), whereby the said accused
persons sought quashing of chargesheet filed under
Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427 and
5
354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , arising out of
FIR No. 150 of 2022 registered at Police Station
Survey Park in connection with ACGR No. 4659 of
2022, pending before the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore.
4. the impugned judgment, the High Court
Vide
quashed the proceedings insofar as Nabina Bose and
Pampa Joardar are concerned. However, it declined
to grant similar relief to the remaining accused,
6
namely appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 , and permitted the
proceedings against them to continue.
2
Appellant in Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8672
of 2024. Hereinafter, being referred to as “appellant No.1”.
3
Appellant in Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8721
of 2024. Hereinafter, being referred to as “appellant No.2”.
4
Appellant in Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9826
of 2024. Hereinafter, being referred to as “appellant No.3”.
5
For short, “IPC”.
6
Collectively, they are being referred to as “appellants”.
2
Brief Facts: -
5. Succinctly stated, the material facts necessary
for the adjudication of the present appeals are as
follows.
th
6. On the night of 11 October, 2022 at about
09:20 p.m., Sushil Chakrabarti, respondent No. 2
7
herein , lodged a written complaint at Police Station
Survey Park, alleging inter alia that one, Sourav Sen
had forcibly entered the apartment building by
breaking open the main entrance door, which,
according to him, had already been damaged earlier.
Upon being questioned as to why the door had been
left open, Sourav Sen responded by hurling filthy and
objectionable abuses at the complainant and his
family members. It was further alleged that his
parents soon joined him, thereby exacerbating the
situation.
7. The complainant further alleged that when he
attempted to lock the door of his flat, as valuables in
connection with Lakshmi Puja were kept inside,
another altercation ensued concerning a scooter
purportedly parked near the electric meter boxes,
7
Hereinafter, being referred to as “Complainant”.
3
despite prior instructions of the local police to remove
the same. According to the complainant, the
situation thereafter escalated and several persons
assembled at the spot.
8. It was alleged that, in course of the altercation,
the accused persons, manhandled the complainant
with an intention to cause injury, including blows
directed towards his pacemaker, and also assaulted
his family members. It was further alleged that the
accused persons slapped and kicked the
complainant, threw sandals at him, and used a lathi
during the incident. They were also accused of
attempting to forcibly enter the flat with the intention
of ransacking it, and of issuing threats of dire
consequences. The complainant alleged that
appellant No.1 and his wife had extended threats
during the incident, which, according to him, would
find corroboration from the CCTV footage.
9. The complainant also levelled allegations
against appellant Nos. 2 and 3, stating that they
came downstairs while the incident was in progress
and threatened the complainant and his family
members, and insinuated that they should vacate the
flat. The complaint also adverted to prior disputes
4
between the parties concerning maintenance
charges, alleged misappropriation of gold ornaments,
and earlier complaints purportedly lodged before the
local police authorities.
10. It was further stated that although a written
complaint was submitted on the same night, it was
kept in abeyance on the directions of the then duty
officer. The complainant thereafter approached the
th
police on 17 October, 2022, seeking lifting of the
abeyance order and requested that the complaint be
treated as a First Information Report, asserting that
the alleged assault could have had fatal
consequences. Pursuant thereto, FIR No. 150 of 2022
th
dated 18 October, 2022, came to be registered at
Police Station Survey Park under Sections 143, 341,
323, 324, 504, 506, 509, and 427 of the IPC against
8 accused persons including the appellants.
11. Investigation was undertaken and upon its
th
culmination, Chargesheet No. 135 of 2022 dated 16
December, 2022 came to be filed under Sections 143,
341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427 and 354 of the IPC
against eight accused persons including the
appellants herein. The learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore,
5
took cognizance of the chargesheet and issued
summon to all the accused persons, including the
appellants.
12. The complainant filed a protest petition
contending that the Investigating Officer had
deliberately omitted to invoke Section 307 IPC, in
order to save the accused persons though there
existed sufficient material on record, to make out a
case of attempt to murder.
13. Being aggrieved, appellant No.1 along with
Nabina Bose preferred Criminal Revision No. 1476 of
2023 and appellant Nos.2 and 3 along with Pampa
Joardar preferred Criminal Revision No. 2305 of 2023
before the High Court, seeking quashing of the
proceedings being ACGR No. 4659 of 2022 arising out
of FIR No. 150 of 2022 registered at Police Station
Survey Park.
14. As noted hereinabove, the High Court, vide
th
common impugned judgment and order dated 8
March, 2024 quashed the proceedings insofar as
Nabina Bose and Pampa Joardar were concerned.
However, it declined to extend similar relief to the
remaining accused, i.e., the appellants herein, and
permitted the proceedings against them to continue.
6
15. The correctness and legality of the said common
impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court falls for consideration in the present appeals
by special leave at the instance of the appellants.
16. At the outset, it may be noted that while issuing
notice in the present appeals, this Court had stayed
further proceedings in the trial insofar as the
appellants are concerned, and the said interim order
continued to operate during the pendency of the
8
present proceedings.
17. It is further apposite to note that when the
rd
matter came up for hearing before this Court on 3
February, 2026, we had requested the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well
as the learned senior counsel appearing for the
complainant, to explore the possibility of an amicable
settlement between the parties. However, when the
th
matter was again taken up on 17 February, 2026,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respective
parties apprised the Court that the parties were not
amenable to an amicable resolution. In view thereof,
8 th
Order dated 15 July, 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 8672
nd
and 8721 of 2024 and order dated 22 July, 2024 in Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 9826 of 2024.
7
we proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the
parties on merits.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants:
18. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailed the
impugned judgment of the High Court, inter alia, on
the following grounds:
A. That the High Court failed to appreciate that the
proceedings against the appellants were actuated
with mala fide objective and were maliciously
instituted by the complainant with the ulterior
motive of wreaking vengeance on account of
personal animosity and prior disputes between the
parties. It was submitted that the appellants
acting as good Samaritans had, in fact, intervened
only to resolve the dispute which had flared up
between the complainant and another flat owner,
and only for that reason, they have been falsely
implicated in this case. The initiation and
continuation of the proceedings, it was urged,
tantamounts to an abuse of the process of law.
B. That the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face
value and read in their entirety, do not prima facie
disclose the commission of any cognizable offence
8
against the appellants. The complaint and the
protest petition are replete with vague and general
assertions, without any specific attribution of role
to the appellants in respect of the offences alleged
under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509,
427 and 354 of the IPC. In the absence of clear
particulars regarding the overt acts attributable to
the particular accused, the continuation of
criminal proceedings is legally unsustainable.
C. That the High Court failed to duly consider the
specific submission advanced on behalf of the
appellants that the CCTV footage of the place of
occurrence, which formed part of the material
collected during investigation, clearly
demonstrated that the appellants were not present
at the spot at the time when the alleged altercation
is stated to have taken place. They reached the
scene later and tried to pacify the parties at best.
It was contended that the said electronic evidence,
being the best and unimpeachable piece of
independent evidence available on record,
completely belies the allegations of their
participation in the incident. Despite this, the
Investigating Agency proceeded to file the
9
chargesheet in a mechanical manner without
undertaking a proper and fair evaluation of the
CCTV footage, which was heavily relied upon by
the complainant himself. It was urged that the
High Court, while declining to quash the
proceedings, failed to examine this crucial aspect,
and thereby overlooked material which goes to the
very root of the prosecution case against the
appellants, thereby totally undermining its
credibility.
D. That the High Court erred in not extending the
benefit to the appellants while quashing the
proceedings against similarly placed co-accused
persons, despite the allegations against all being
identical. It was contended that the differential
treatment accorded by the High Court, without
assigning cogent reasons, violates the principle of
parity and renders the impugned decision
arbitrary.
E. That the reliance placed on the statement of Dr.
Aparajita Bandyopadhyay recorded under Section
9
164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , was
9
For short, “CrPC”.
10
misplaced, as the said statement was inconsistent
with her earlier statement recorded under Section
161 of CrPC, thereby casting serious doubt on its
reliability. It was further submitted that even as
per the said statement, the allegation of
inappropriate touching was attributed to another
individual, and not specifically to the present
appellants. Consequently, the invocation of
Section 354 IPC against them is wholly untenable,
particularly when the original complaint is silent
in that regard.
F. That the chargesheet itself is liable to be quashed,
as it has been filed in a mechanical and
perfunctory manner, without specifying the
precise role played by the appellants or the
material evidence constituting the alleged offences.
It was urged that the chargesheet does not clearly
delineate the particular criminal act/s attributable
to the accused, in contravention of the settled legal
position that the role of each accused must be
separately and clearly mentioned as the provisions
of vicarious liability would have no application in
the given facts and circumstances.
11
G. That the High Court failed to appreciate that the
continuation of criminal proceedings against the
appellants would amount to a sheer abuse of the
process of law, inasmuch as the dispute between
the parties is essentially of civil nature arising out
of disagreements between co-residents of the same
apartment complex. It was submitted that the
allegations, even if accepted at their face value,
disclose at best a trivial tussle between neighbours
lacking the essential ingredients of the serious
penal offences invoked in the chargesheet. The
invocation of multiple penal provisions, including
Section 354 IPC, in the absence of specific and
substantiated allegations, reflects a manifest
attempt to give criminal colour to a trivial dispute
followed by verbal altercation amongst
neighbours. In such circumstances, compelling
the appellants to undergo the rigours of a criminal
trial would be wholly unjustified and contrary to
the settled principles governing the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to
prevent misuse of the criminal process.
12
On the aforesaid grounds, learned senior counsel
submitted that the impugned judgment of the High
Court, insofar as it refused to quash the proceedings
against the appellants, is unsustainable in law. It
was urged that the allegations are vague,
unsupported by specific material, and the continued
prosecution of the appellants tantamounts to a gross
abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, it was
prayed that this Court be pleased to set aside the
impugned judgment to that extent and quash the
criminal proceedings being ACGR No. 4659 of 2022
and Chargesheet No. 135 of 2022 arising out of FIR
No. 150 of 2022 registered at Police Station Survey
Park the appellants.
qua
Submissions on behalf of Complainant
(respondent No.2):
19. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent-complainant,
supported the impugned judgment and contended
that the same warrants no interference by this Court,
inter alia , on the following grounds: -
A. That the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction
judiciously and upon a proper appreciation of the
13
material collected during investigation, and rightly
refused to quash the chargesheet insofar as the
appellants are concerned. It was submitted that
the instant appeals do not raise any substantial
questions of law, nor does it demonstrate any
perversity or patent illegality in the impugned
judgment so as to warrant interference.
B. That the complainant is a 77 years’ old former
Public Prosecutor at District and Sessions Judge,
Alipore and presently a practicing advocate,
suffering from syncope and having a pacemaker
th
installed in his chest. It was submitted that on 11
October, 2022 at about 9:20 p.m., all the accused
persons formed an unlawful assembly and, in
furtherance of the common object of such
assembly, they abused and assaulted the
complainant and his family members at Flat No. 2,
Ground Floor, 13/10/1, Janata Road, Kanishka
Apartment with slaps, kicks, sandals and lathis .
The accused persons also damaged the main door
of the apartment complex and threatened them
with dire consequences.
C. That the statement of witness, Dr. Aparajita
Bandopadhyay recorded under Section 164 of
14
CrPC specifically mentions the names of the
appellants setting out the overt acts attributed to
them, including restraining the complainant,
throwing chappal aimed at his pacemaker, igniting
a lighter allegedly to burn him, and participating
in the assault. These specific allegations, it was
urged, clearly disclose the ingredients of offences
under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 and
354 IPC, thereby making out a prima facie case fit
for trial.
D. That during investigation, the CCTV footage of the
th
entire incident dated 11 October, 2022 was
collected and the same forms part of the
chargesheet. The CCTV clipping establishes
conclusively the active involvement and
participation of the appellants in hurling abuses,
issuing threats, throwing a shoe aimed at the
pacemaker of the complainant, and assaulting the
victim lady. It was contended that the electronic
evidence thus corroborates the ocular version and
lends strong prima facie support to the prosecution
case.
E. That the medical records of the complainant and
th
Dr. Aparajita Bandopadhyay dated 12 October,
15
2022 prima facie establish that both sustained
injuries in the incident. The High Court itself
observed that the medical report of Dr. Aparajita
Bandopadhyay shows that she had been
assaulted. In view of such medical evidence, the
offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC are
clearly attracted and cannot be said to be
groundless.
F. That although the High Court quashed the
proceedings against certain co-accused for want of
specific allegations, it consciously declined to
extend such relief to the appellants in view of the
distinct and specific role attributed to them in the
FIR, the protest petition and the statements of
witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of
CrPC. Such segregation made by the High Court is
based on material on record and sound reasoning
and, therefore, does not call for interference.
On these grounds, learned senior counsel submitted
that the impugned judgment of the High Court is
well-founded in law as well as facts, and that the
present appeals, being devoid of merit, deserve to be
16
dismissed, leaving the issues to be adjudicated after
a full dressed trial.
Submissions on behalf of State of West Bengal
(respondent No.1):
20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State of West Bengal submitted that the investigation
was conducted strictly in accordance with law and
that specific and clear roles have been attributed to
the appellants in the commission of the alleged
offences. It was contended that the complainant had
consistently named the accused persons including
the appellants in the FIR and in his statements
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC. The
CCTV footage seized during investigation, along with
medical records and other documentary material,
establishes their presence and
prima facie
participation in the occurrence in question. It was
further urged that the chargesheet was filed only
upon due consideration of the evidence collected,
disclosing cognizable offences, and that the questions
sought to be raised by the appellants revolve around
disputed factual aspects which can be adjudicated
only upon trial. The State, therefore, supported the
17
impugned judgment of the High Court to the extent it
declined to quash the proceedings against the
appellants and submitted that no case for
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India is made out.
Analysis and Discussion:
21. We have heard and considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully gone through the impugned judgment as
well as the material placed on record.
22. Before we advert to the rival submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties and examine the
factual matrix of the present case, it would be
apposite to briefly recapitulate the scope and ambit
of the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court
under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The parameters
governing the exercise of such power, particularly in
matters concerning quashing of criminal
proceedings, have been authoritatively expounded by
this Court in a catena of decisions, most notably in
10
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , wherein this
10
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
18
Court elaborately considered the extent and scope of
the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of CrPC
and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In
paragraph 102 of the said judgment, this Court
illustratively delineated seven categories of cases
wherein such extraordinary jurisdiction may be
invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. For ready
reference, the relevant extract from the said
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we have given the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
19
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate
as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge. ”
[Emphasis supplied]
23. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, it is
evident that the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 of CrPC is intended to be
20
exercised, inter alia , where the allegations made in
the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not prima
facie constitute any offence, or where the
uncontroverted allegations and the material collected
fail to disclose the commission of an offence, or where
the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
malafide and instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance. The categories illustratively
enumerated in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal
(supra) serve as guiding principles to prevent abuse
of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Tested on the anvil of these settled parameters, it
becomes necessary to examine whether the
allegations in the present case, read as they stand
along with the material on record including the CCTV
footage, disclose the essential ingredients of the
offences alleged against the appellants, or whether
the continuation of proceedings qua them would
amount to permitting the criminal process to be used
as an instrument of harassment.
th
24. A perusal of the impugned FIR dated 18
October, 2022 and the material placed on record,
reveals that the incident has its genesis in a dispute
between the complainant and one Sourav Sen
21
concerning the main entrance of the apartment
complex and the alleged parking of a scooter near the
electric meter boxes. It is alleged that, upon being
questioned in this regard by the complainant, Sourav
Sen began hurling abuses and that his parents soon
joined in, following which the situation escalated and
several persons assembled at the spot. The FIR
further narrates allegations of assault by accused
persons, including slapping, kicking, throwing
sandals , use of a lathi , and attempts to forcibly enter
the flat, coupled with threats of dire consequences. It
must, however, be noted that the FIR does not clearly
specify as to which particular accused person
actually assaulted the complainant and his wife. The
allegations of physical assault are couched in vague
terms without distinct attribution of specific overt
acts to individual accused persons.
25. Insofar as the appellants are concerned, the FIR
records that they came downstairs during the course
of the incident and allegedly extended threats to the
complainant and his family members, including
asking them to vacate the flat. The gravamen of the
allegations against them, as reflected in the FIR, is
thus predicated on assertions of intimidation and
22
verbal threats purportedly issued during the
altercation. Significantly, the FIR does not attribute
to the appellants any specific overt act of physical
assault, use of force, or of causing injury.
26. During the course of hearing, learned senior
counsel appearing for both sides placed considerable
reliance upon the CCTV footage of the incident in
support of their respective submissions. At their
request, the relevant footage, forming part of the
material collected during investigation, was viewed
by us. Since both sides sought to draw inferences
from the electronic record, we deemed it appropriate
to minutely appreciate the footage firsthand.
27. Upon a careful and comprehensive examination
of the said footage, it emerges that the appellants are
not visible at the scene during the relevant time when
the alleged acts of assault are stated to have taken
place. The recording indicates that the altercation
between the complainant and certain other
individuals had already taken place prior to the
arrival of the appellants at the scene. The footage
further demonstrates that the appellants appear only
subsequently and are not shown to be engaging in
any act of aggression or participating in the active
23
altercation. On the contrary, the visual recording
indicates that the appellants made efforts to placate
the situation and to dissuade the participants from
further escalation of the dispute. The gestures
attributed to the appellants are demonstrative of
restraint rather than of participation in any act of
violence. At no point does the footage depict the
appellants committing any overt act of assault or
aggression against the complainant or his wife. The
absence of even the slightest visible act of assault
attributable to the appellants in the CCTV footage
assumes particular significance in view of their
contention that the allegations in the FIR were
manifestly attended with and that their
malafide
names were vindictively introduced in the FIR by the
complainant with an ulterior motive arising out of
prior personal disputes and animosity. The CCTV
footage admitted by the parties and forming a part of
the report under Section 173(2) of CrPC, therefore,
materially undermines the prosecution’s case and
renders the allegations against the appellants highly
doubtful and unworthy of credence even at the stage
of quashing petition.
24
28. In our considered opinion, the specific plea
raised by the appellants in their petition seeking
quashing of the proceedings, particularly with regard
to the CCTV footage forming part of the chargesheet,
merited due and independent consideration by the
High Court. The said electronic evidence constituted
a material piece of evidence collected during
investigation and was directly relevant to the issue as
to whether a prima facie case was made out against
the appellants. However, a perusal of the impugned
judgment does not reflect any meaningful analysis of
the said footage or the contentions advanced on the
basis thereof. The omission to advert to and evaluate
this crucial aspect indicates that the matter was not
examined with the degree of scrutiny warranted in
proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC.
29. We are further constrained to note that by the
very same impugned judgment, and on the basis of
the same set of allegations arising out of the same FIR
and chargesheet, the High Court proceeded to quash
the criminal proceedings against two of the co-
accused, while declining similar relief to the
appellants. The impugned judgment does not
disclose any cogent or discernible reasoning for
25
drawing such a distinction, particularly when the
allegations stem from a common incident and are
founded on substantially similar assertions. In the
absence of a clear rationale justifying differential
treatment, the approach adopted by the High Court
is legally and factually unsustainable.
30. It is further relevant to note that Dr. Aparajita
Bandopadhyay (family member of the complainant),
in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC,
has also made omnibus allegations of assault without
assigning specific roles to the accused persons.
Though it is stated therein that appellant No. 2 had
ignited a lighter with the intention to burn her father,
the said allegation stands completely dislodged by the
CCTV footage, wherein no such act is discernible.
Apart from the said assertion, no distinct overt act
has been attributed to any of the appellants before
us. In our view, reliance placed on the said
statement, in the absence of corroborative material
and in the face of contrary electronic evidence
collected during investigation, is wholly misplaced.
Rather than strengthening the case of the
complainant, the said statement fortifies the
submission of the appellants that the complaint is
26
replete with vague and generalized allegations
lacking specific attribution.
31. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a
cumulative consideration of the allegations in the
FIR, the material collected during investigation, and
the evidence placed before us, we are of the
considered opinion that the present case falls
squarely within the illustrative categories (1), (3) and
(7) enumerated in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal
(supra) . Even if the allegations in the FIR and the
material collected during investigation are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, they
do not prima facie constitute the necessary
ingredients of offences alleged against the appellants.
Further, the uncontroverted material available on
record, to be specific, the CCTV footage, completely
belies the allegation of their participation in the
alleged offences so as to justify their being put to trial.
Additionally, the attendant circumstances,
particularly the admitted pre-existing disputes
between the parties and the absence of specific and
distinct overt acts attributed to the appellants, lend
substance to their contention that the criminal
proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide
27
and have been initiated with an ulterior motive. In
such circumstances, permitting the continuation of
prosecution of the appellants would not advance the
cause of justice but would instead amount to an
abuse of the process of law.
32. Recently, this Court in Pradeep Kumar
11
Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh , revisited
and further elucidated the parameters governing the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
CrPC. While drawing guidance from earlier
precedents, this Court delineated a structured four-
step test to assess the sustainability of a prayer for
quashing criminal proceedings. The said decision
underscores that where the material relied upon by
the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality; is
sufficient to negate the allegations in the complaint;
remains unrefuted or incapable of justifiable
refutation by the prosecution; and where
continuation of the proceedings would amount to an
abuse of the process of Court and not serve the ends
of justice, the High Court would be justified in
exercising its inherent powers to quash the
11
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947.
28
proceedings. For ready reference, the relevant
observations from the said judgment are reproduced
hereinbelow: -
“20. The following steps should ordinarily
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing,
raised by an accused by invoking the power
vested in the High Court under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C.: —
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by
the accused is sound, reasonable, and
indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and
impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by
the accused, would rule out the assertions
contained in the charges levelled against the
accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject
and overrule the factual assertions contained in
the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as
false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon
by the accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is
such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial
would result in an abuse of process of the court,
and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative,
judicial conscience of the High Court should
persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings,
in exercise of power vested in it under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides
doing justice to the accused, would save precious
court time, which would otherwise be wasted in
holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising
therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same
would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.
29
[(See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor
(Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]”
[Emphasis supplied]
33. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the case at hand,
we find that the material relied upon by the
appellants in the present case, particularly the CCTV
footage forming part of the chargesheet, is of
unimpeachable provenance and reliability, having
been collected during investigation and forming part
of prosecution’s own record. The footage, which was
heavily relied upon by both the sides during the
course of arguments, upon careful scrutiny, does not
depict the appellants participating in any act of
assault or overt aggression, thereby substantially
dislodging the factual foundation of the allegations
against them. The said material stands unrefuted in
any meaningful manner and is of such character that
it cannot be lightly brushed aside even at the stage
when the Court is considering a prayer for quashing
the proceedings of the criminal case at its inception.
34. In this backdrop, compelling appellant Nos. 1, 2
and 3 to face a full-fledged criminal trial would serve
no meaningful purpose. The continuation of such
proceedings, in face of total lack of credible material
30
connecting them with the alleged offences, would
amount to misuse of the criminal process. The
present case, therefore, satisfies each of the
parameters delineated in Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani (supra) . Where reliable and
unimpeachable material demonstrably displaces the
factual basis of the accusations and the prosecution
is unable to effectively counter the same, the Court
would be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction
to prevent injustice. Such an approach not only
accords justice to the accused but also obviates the
wastage of precious judicial time on proceedings
which, on the admitted material, do not hold a
reasonable prospect of culminating in conviction.
35. As a sequitur to the foregoing discussion, we are
of the considered opinion that the impugned
th
judgment and order dated 8 March, 2024 passed by
the High Court cannot be sustained in law and the
same deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The
appeals preferred by appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are
accordingly allowed.
36. Consequently, Charge Sheet No. 135 of 2022,
filed under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506,
509, 427 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
31
arising out of FIR No. 150 of 2022 registered at Police
Station Survey Park and pending in ACGR No. 4659
of 2022 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, insofar as
it relates to appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, stand quashed.
37. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
….……………………J.
(N. V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 06, 2026.
32
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s).8672 of 2024)
SAJAL BOSE ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s).8721 of 2024)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s).9826 of 2024)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The instant appeals by special leave arise out of
th
common impugned judgment and order dated 8
1
March, 2024 passed by High Court at Calcutta in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SHIPRA NARANG
Date: 2026.04.06
17:22:28 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as “High Court”.
1
Criminal Revision No. 1476 of 2023, filed on behalf of
2
Sajal Bose and Nabina Bose (Wife of Sajal Bose), and
Criminal Revision No. 2305 of 2023 filed on behalf of
3 4
Chandidas Joardar , Sautrik Joardar (Son of
Chandidas Joardar) and Pampa Joardar (Wife of
Chandidas Joardar), whereby the said accused
persons sought quashing of chargesheet filed under
Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427 and
5
354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , arising out of
FIR No. 150 of 2022 registered at Police Station
Survey Park in connection with ACGR No. 4659 of
2022, pending before the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore.
4. the impugned judgment, the High Court
Vide
quashed the proceedings insofar as Nabina Bose and
Pampa Joardar are concerned. However, it declined
to grant similar relief to the remaining accused,
6
namely appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 , and permitted the
proceedings against them to continue.
2
Appellant in Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8672
of 2024. Hereinafter, being referred to as “appellant No.1”.
3
Appellant in Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8721
of 2024. Hereinafter, being referred to as “appellant No.2”.
4
Appellant in Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9826
of 2024. Hereinafter, being referred to as “appellant No.3”.
5
For short, “IPC”.
6
Collectively, they are being referred to as “appellants”.
2
Brief Facts: -
5. Succinctly stated, the material facts necessary
for the adjudication of the present appeals are as
follows.
th
6. On the night of 11 October, 2022 at about
09:20 p.m., Sushil Chakrabarti, respondent No. 2
7
herein , lodged a written complaint at Police Station
Survey Park, alleging inter alia that one, Sourav Sen
had forcibly entered the apartment building by
breaking open the main entrance door, which,
according to him, had already been damaged earlier.
Upon being questioned as to why the door had been
left open, Sourav Sen responded by hurling filthy and
objectionable abuses at the complainant and his
family members. It was further alleged that his
parents soon joined him, thereby exacerbating the
situation.
7. The complainant further alleged that when he
attempted to lock the door of his flat, as valuables in
connection with Lakshmi Puja were kept inside,
another altercation ensued concerning a scooter
purportedly parked near the electric meter boxes,
7
Hereinafter, being referred to as “Complainant”.
3
despite prior instructions of the local police to remove
the same. According to the complainant, the
situation thereafter escalated and several persons
assembled at the spot.
8. It was alleged that, in course of the altercation,
the accused persons, manhandled the complainant
with an intention to cause injury, including blows
directed towards his pacemaker, and also assaulted
his family members. It was further alleged that the
accused persons slapped and kicked the
complainant, threw sandals at him, and used a lathi
during the incident. They were also accused of
attempting to forcibly enter the flat with the intention
of ransacking it, and of issuing threats of dire
consequences. The complainant alleged that
appellant No.1 and his wife had extended threats
during the incident, which, according to him, would
find corroboration from the CCTV footage.
9. The complainant also levelled allegations
against appellant Nos. 2 and 3, stating that they
came downstairs while the incident was in progress
and threatened the complainant and his family
members, and insinuated that they should vacate the
flat. The complaint also adverted to prior disputes
4
between the parties concerning maintenance
charges, alleged misappropriation of gold ornaments,
and earlier complaints purportedly lodged before the
local police authorities.
10. It was further stated that although a written
complaint was submitted on the same night, it was
kept in abeyance on the directions of the then duty
officer. The complainant thereafter approached the
th
police on 17 October, 2022, seeking lifting of the
abeyance order and requested that the complaint be
treated as a First Information Report, asserting that
the alleged assault could have had fatal
consequences. Pursuant thereto, FIR No. 150 of 2022
th
dated 18 October, 2022, came to be registered at
Police Station Survey Park under Sections 143, 341,
323, 324, 504, 506, 509, and 427 of the IPC against
8 accused persons including the appellants.
11. Investigation was undertaken and upon its
th
culmination, Chargesheet No. 135 of 2022 dated 16
December, 2022 came to be filed under Sections 143,
341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427 and 354 of the IPC
against eight accused persons including the
appellants herein. The learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore,
5
took cognizance of the chargesheet and issued
summon to all the accused persons, including the
appellants.
12. The complainant filed a protest petition
contending that the Investigating Officer had
deliberately omitted to invoke Section 307 IPC, in
order to save the accused persons though there
existed sufficient material on record, to make out a
case of attempt to murder.
13. Being aggrieved, appellant No.1 along with
Nabina Bose preferred Criminal Revision No. 1476 of
2023 and appellant Nos.2 and 3 along with Pampa
Joardar preferred Criminal Revision No. 2305 of 2023
before the High Court, seeking quashing of the
proceedings being ACGR No. 4659 of 2022 arising out
of FIR No. 150 of 2022 registered at Police Station
Survey Park.
14. As noted hereinabove, the High Court, vide
th
common impugned judgment and order dated 8
March, 2024 quashed the proceedings insofar as
Nabina Bose and Pampa Joardar were concerned.
However, it declined to extend similar relief to the
remaining accused, i.e., the appellants herein, and
permitted the proceedings against them to continue.
6
15. The correctness and legality of the said common
impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court falls for consideration in the present appeals
by special leave at the instance of the appellants.
16. At the outset, it may be noted that while issuing
notice in the present appeals, this Court had stayed
further proceedings in the trial insofar as the
appellants are concerned, and the said interim order
continued to operate during the pendency of the
8
present proceedings.
17. It is further apposite to note that when the
rd
matter came up for hearing before this Court on 3
February, 2026, we had requested the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well
as the learned senior counsel appearing for the
complainant, to explore the possibility of an amicable
settlement between the parties. However, when the
th
matter was again taken up on 17 February, 2026,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respective
parties apprised the Court that the parties were not
amenable to an amicable resolution. In view thereof,
8 th
Order dated 15 July, 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 8672
nd
and 8721 of 2024 and order dated 22 July, 2024 in Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 9826 of 2024.
7
we proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the
parties on merits.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants:
18. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailed the
impugned judgment of the High Court, inter alia, on
the following grounds:
A. That the High Court failed to appreciate that the
proceedings against the appellants were actuated
with mala fide objective and were maliciously
instituted by the complainant with the ulterior
motive of wreaking vengeance on account of
personal animosity and prior disputes between the
parties. It was submitted that the appellants
acting as good Samaritans had, in fact, intervened
only to resolve the dispute which had flared up
between the complainant and another flat owner,
and only for that reason, they have been falsely
implicated in this case. The initiation and
continuation of the proceedings, it was urged,
tantamounts to an abuse of the process of law.
B. That the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face
value and read in their entirety, do not prima facie
disclose the commission of any cognizable offence
8
against the appellants. The complaint and the
protest petition are replete with vague and general
assertions, without any specific attribution of role
to the appellants in respect of the offences alleged
under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509,
427 and 354 of the IPC. In the absence of clear
particulars regarding the overt acts attributable to
the particular accused, the continuation of
criminal proceedings is legally unsustainable.
C. That the High Court failed to duly consider the
specific submission advanced on behalf of the
appellants that the CCTV footage of the place of
occurrence, which formed part of the material
collected during investigation, clearly
demonstrated that the appellants were not present
at the spot at the time when the alleged altercation
is stated to have taken place. They reached the
scene later and tried to pacify the parties at best.
It was contended that the said electronic evidence,
being the best and unimpeachable piece of
independent evidence available on record,
completely belies the allegations of their
participation in the incident. Despite this, the
Investigating Agency proceeded to file the
9
chargesheet in a mechanical manner without
undertaking a proper and fair evaluation of the
CCTV footage, which was heavily relied upon by
the complainant himself. It was urged that the
High Court, while declining to quash the
proceedings, failed to examine this crucial aspect,
and thereby overlooked material which goes to the
very root of the prosecution case against the
appellants, thereby totally undermining its
credibility.
D. That the High Court erred in not extending the
benefit to the appellants while quashing the
proceedings against similarly placed co-accused
persons, despite the allegations against all being
identical. It was contended that the differential
treatment accorded by the High Court, without
assigning cogent reasons, violates the principle of
parity and renders the impugned decision
arbitrary.
E. That the reliance placed on the statement of Dr.
Aparajita Bandyopadhyay recorded under Section
9
164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , was
9
For short, “CrPC”.
10
misplaced, as the said statement was inconsistent
with her earlier statement recorded under Section
161 of CrPC, thereby casting serious doubt on its
reliability. It was further submitted that even as
per the said statement, the allegation of
inappropriate touching was attributed to another
individual, and not specifically to the present
appellants. Consequently, the invocation of
Section 354 IPC against them is wholly untenable,
particularly when the original complaint is silent
in that regard.
F. That the chargesheet itself is liable to be quashed,
as it has been filed in a mechanical and
perfunctory manner, without specifying the
precise role played by the appellants or the
material evidence constituting the alleged offences.
It was urged that the chargesheet does not clearly
delineate the particular criminal act/s attributable
to the accused, in contravention of the settled legal
position that the role of each accused must be
separately and clearly mentioned as the provisions
of vicarious liability would have no application in
the given facts and circumstances.
11
G. That the High Court failed to appreciate that the
continuation of criminal proceedings against the
appellants would amount to a sheer abuse of the
process of law, inasmuch as the dispute between
the parties is essentially of civil nature arising out
of disagreements between co-residents of the same
apartment complex. It was submitted that the
allegations, even if accepted at their face value,
disclose at best a trivial tussle between neighbours
lacking the essential ingredients of the serious
penal offences invoked in the chargesheet. The
invocation of multiple penal provisions, including
Section 354 IPC, in the absence of specific and
substantiated allegations, reflects a manifest
attempt to give criminal colour to a trivial dispute
followed by verbal altercation amongst
neighbours. In such circumstances, compelling
the appellants to undergo the rigours of a criminal
trial would be wholly unjustified and contrary to
the settled principles governing the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to
prevent misuse of the criminal process.
12
On the aforesaid grounds, learned senior counsel
submitted that the impugned judgment of the High
Court, insofar as it refused to quash the proceedings
against the appellants, is unsustainable in law. It
was urged that the allegations are vague,
unsupported by specific material, and the continued
prosecution of the appellants tantamounts to a gross
abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, it was
prayed that this Court be pleased to set aside the
impugned judgment to that extent and quash the
criminal proceedings being ACGR No. 4659 of 2022
and Chargesheet No. 135 of 2022 arising out of FIR
No. 150 of 2022 registered at Police Station Survey
Park the appellants.
qua
Submissions on behalf of Complainant
(respondent No.2):
19. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent-complainant,
supported the impugned judgment and contended
that the same warrants no interference by this Court,
inter alia , on the following grounds: -
A. That the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction
judiciously and upon a proper appreciation of the
13
material collected during investigation, and rightly
refused to quash the chargesheet insofar as the
appellants are concerned. It was submitted that
the instant appeals do not raise any substantial
questions of law, nor does it demonstrate any
perversity or patent illegality in the impugned
judgment so as to warrant interference.
B. That the complainant is a 77 years’ old former
Public Prosecutor at District and Sessions Judge,
Alipore and presently a practicing advocate,
suffering from syncope and having a pacemaker
th
installed in his chest. It was submitted that on 11
October, 2022 at about 9:20 p.m., all the accused
persons formed an unlawful assembly and, in
furtherance of the common object of such
assembly, they abused and assaulted the
complainant and his family members at Flat No. 2,
Ground Floor, 13/10/1, Janata Road, Kanishka
Apartment with slaps, kicks, sandals and lathis .
The accused persons also damaged the main door
of the apartment complex and threatened them
with dire consequences.
C. That the statement of witness, Dr. Aparajita
Bandopadhyay recorded under Section 164 of
14
CrPC specifically mentions the names of the
appellants setting out the overt acts attributed to
them, including restraining the complainant,
throwing chappal aimed at his pacemaker, igniting
a lighter allegedly to burn him, and participating
in the assault. These specific allegations, it was
urged, clearly disclose the ingredients of offences
under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 and
354 IPC, thereby making out a prima facie case fit
for trial.
D. That during investigation, the CCTV footage of the
th
entire incident dated 11 October, 2022 was
collected and the same forms part of the
chargesheet. The CCTV clipping establishes
conclusively the active involvement and
participation of the appellants in hurling abuses,
issuing threats, throwing a shoe aimed at the
pacemaker of the complainant, and assaulting the
victim lady. It was contended that the electronic
evidence thus corroborates the ocular version and
lends strong prima facie support to the prosecution
case.
E. That the medical records of the complainant and
th
Dr. Aparajita Bandopadhyay dated 12 October,
15
2022 prima facie establish that both sustained
injuries in the incident. The High Court itself
observed that the medical report of Dr. Aparajita
Bandopadhyay shows that she had been
assaulted. In view of such medical evidence, the
offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC are
clearly attracted and cannot be said to be
groundless.
F. That although the High Court quashed the
proceedings against certain co-accused for want of
specific allegations, it consciously declined to
extend such relief to the appellants in view of the
distinct and specific role attributed to them in the
FIR, the protest petition and the statements of
witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of
CrPC. Such segregation made by the High Court is
based on material on record and sound reasoning
and, therefore, does not call for interference.
On these grounds, learned senior counsel submitted
that the impugned judgment of the High Court is
well-founded in law as well as facts, and that the
present appeals, being devoid of merit, deserve to be
16
dismissed, leaving the issues to be adjudicated after
a full dressed trial.
Submissions on behalf of State of West Bengal
(respondent No.1):
20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State of West Bengal submitted that the investigation
was conducted strictly in accordance with law and
that specific and clear roles have been attributed to
the appellants in the commission of the alleged
offences. It was contended that the complainant had
consistently named the accused persons including
the appellants in the FIR and in his statements
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC. The
CCTV footage seized during investigation, along with
medical records and other documentary material,
establishes their presence and
prima facie
participation in the occurrence in question. It was
further urged that the chargesheet was filed only
upon due consideration of the evidence collected,
disclosing cognizable offences, and that the questions
sought to be raised by the appellants revolve around
disputed factual aspects which can be adjudicated
only upon trial. The State, therefore, supported the
17
impugned judgment of the High Court to the extent it
declined to quash the proceedings against the
appellants and submitted that no case for
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India is made out.
Analysis and Discussion:
21. We have heard and considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully gone through the impugned judgment as
well as the material placed on record.
22. Before we advert to the rival submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties and examine the
factual matrix of the present case, it would be
apposite to briefly recapitulate the scope and ambit
of the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court
under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The parameters
governing the exercise of such power, particularly in
matters concerning quashing of criminal
proceedings, have been authoritatively expounded by
this Court in a catena of decisions, most notably in
10
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , wherein this
10
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
18
Court elaborately considered the extent and scope of
the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of CrPC
and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In
paragraph 102 of the said judgment, this Court
illustratively delineated seven categories of cases
wherein such extraordinary jurisdiction may be
invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. For ready
reference, the relevant extract from the said
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we have given the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
19
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate
as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge. ”
[Emphasis supplied]
23. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, it is
evident that the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 of CrPC is intended to be
20
exercised, inter alia , where the allegations made in
the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not prima
facie constitute any offence, or where the
uncontroverted allegations and the material collected
fail to disclose the commission of an offence, or where
the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
malafide and instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance. The categories illustratively
enumerated in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal
(supra) serve as guiding principles to prevent abuse
of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Tested on the anvil of these settled parameters, it
becomes necessary to examine whether the
allegations in the present case, read as they stand
along with the material on record including the CCTV
footage, disclose the essential ingredients of the
offences alleged against the appellants, or whether
the continuation of proceedings qua them would
amount to permitting the criminal process to be used
as an instrument of harassment.
th
24. A perusal of the impugned FIR dated 18
October, 2022 and the material placed on record,
reveals that the incident has its genesis in a dispute
between the complainant and one Sourav Sen
21
concerning the main entrance of the apartment
complex and the alleged parking of a scooter near the
electric meter boxes. It is alleged that, upon being
questioned in this regard by the complainant, Sourav
Sen began hurling abuses and that his parents soon
joined in, following which the situation escalated and
several persons assembled at the spot. The FIR
further narrates allegations of assault by accused
persons, including slapping, kicking, throwing
sandals , use of a lathi , and attempts to forcibly enter
the flat, coupled with threats of dire consequences. It
must, however, be noted that the FIR does not clearly
specify as to which particular accused person
actually assaulted the complainant and his wife. The
allegations of physical assault are couched in vague
terms without distinct attribution of specific overt
acts to individual accused persons.
25. Insofar as the appellants are concerned, the FIR
records that they came downstairs during the course
of the incident and allegedly extended threats to the
complainant and his family members, including
asking them to vacate the flat. The gravamen of the
allegations against them, as reflected in the FIR, is
thus predicated on assertions of intimidation and
22
verbal threats purportedly issued during the
altercation. Significantly, the FIR does not attribute
to the appellants any specific overt act of physical
assault, use of force, or of causing injury.
26. During the course of hearing, learned senior
counsel appearing for both sides placed considerable
reliance upon the CCTV footage of the incident in
support of their respective submissions. At their
request, the relevant footage, forming part of the
material collected during investigation, was viewed
by us. Since both sides sought to draw inferences
from the electronic record, we deemed it appropriate
to minutely appreciate the footage firsthand.
27. Upon a careful and comprehensive examination
of the said footage, it emerges that the appellants are
not visible at the scene during the relevant time when
the alleged acts of assault are stated to have taken
place. The recording indicates that the altercation
between the complainant and certain other
individuals had already taken place prior to the
arrival of the appellants at the scene. The footage
further demonstrates that the appellants appear only
subsequently and are not shown to be engaging in
any act of aggression or participating in the active
23
altercation. On the contrary, the visual recording
indicates that the appellants made efforts to placate
the situation and to dissuade the participants from
further escalation of the dispute. The gestures
attributed to the appellants are demonstrative of
restraint rather than of participation in any act of
violence. At no point does the footage depict the
appellants committing any overt act of assault or
aggression against the complainant or his wife. The
absence of even the slightest visible act of assault
attributable to the appellants in the CCTV footage
assumes particular significance in view of their
contention that the allegations in the FIR were
manifestly attended with and that their
malafide
names were vindictively introduced in the FIR by the
complainant with an ulterior motive arising out of
prior personal disputes and animosity. The CCTV
footage admitted by the parties and forming a part of
the report under Section 173(2) of CrPC, therefore,
materially undermines the prosecution’s case and
renders the allegations against the appellants highly
doubtful and unworthy of credence even at the stage
of quashing petition.
24
28. In our considered opinion, the specific plea
raised by the appellants in their petition seeking
quashing of the proceedings, particularly with regard
to the CCTV footage forming part of the chargesheet,
merited due and independent consideration by the
High Court. The said electronic evidence constituted
a material piece of evidence collected during
investigation and was directly relevant to the issue as
to whether a prima facie case was made out against
the appellants. However, a perusal of the impugned
judgment does not reflect any meaningful analysis of
the said footage or the contentions advanced on the
basis thereof. The omission to advert to and evaluate
this crucial aspect indicates that the matter was not
examined with the degree of scrutiny warranted in
proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC.
29. We are further constrained to note that by the
very same impugned judgment, and on the basis of
the same set of allegations arising out of the same FIR
and chargesheet, the High Court proceeded to quash
the criminal proceedings against two of the co-
accused, while declining similar relief to the
appellants. The impugned judgment does not
disclose any cogent or discernible reasoning for
25
drawing such a distinction, particularly when the
allegations stem from a common incident and are
founded on substantially similar assertions. In the
absence of a clear rationale justifying differential
treatment, the approach adopted by the High Court
is legally and factually unsustainable.
30. It is further relevant to note that Dr. Aparajita
Bandopadhyay (family member of the complainant),
in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC,
has also made omnibus allegations of assault without
assigning specific roles to the accused persons.
Though it is stated therein that appellant No. 2 had
ignited a lighter with the intention to burn her father,
the said allegation stands completely dislodged by the
CCTV footage, wherein no such act is discernible.
Apart from the said assertion, no distinct overt act
has been attributed to any of the appellants before
us. In our view, reliance placed on the said
statement, in the absence of corroborative material
and in the face of contrary electronic evidence
collected during investigation, is wholly misplaced.
Rather than strengthening the case of the
complainant, the said statement fortifies the
submission of the appellants that the complaint is
26
replete with vague and generalized allegations
lacking specific attribution.
31. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a
cumulative consideration of the allegations in the
FIR, the material collected during investigation, and
the evidence placed before us, we are of the
considered opinion that the present case falls
squarely within the illustrative categories (1), (3) and
(7) enumerated in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal
(supra) . Even if the allegations in the FIR and the
material collected during investigation are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, they
do not prima facie constitute the necessary
ingredients of offences alleged against the appellants.
Further, the uncontroverted material available on
record, to be specific, the CCTV footage, completely
belies the allegation of their participation in the
alleged offences so as to justify their being put to trial.
Additionally, the attendant circumstances,
particularly the admitted pre-existing disputes
between the parties and the absence of specific and
distinct overt acts attributed to the appellants, lend
substance to their contention that the criminal
proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide
27
and have been initiated with an ulterior motive. In
such circumstances, permitting the continuation of
prosecution of the appellants would not advance the
cause of justice but would instead amount to an
abuse of the process of law.
32. Recently, this Court in Pradeep Kumar
11
Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh , revisited
and further elucidated the parameters governing the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
CrPC. While drawing guidance from earlier
precedents, this Court delineated a structured four-
step test to assess the sustainability of a prayer for
quashing criminal proceedings. The said decision
underscores that where the material relied upon by
the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality; is
sufficient to negate the allegations in the complaint;
remains unrefuted or incapable of justifiable
refutation by the prosecution; and where
continuation of the proceedings would amount to an
abuse of the process of Court and not serve the ends
of justice, the High Court would be justified in
exercising its inherent powers to quash the
11
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947.
28
proceedings. For ready reference, the relevant
observations from the said judgment are reproduced
hereinbelow: -
“20. The following steps should ordinarily
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing,
raised by an accused by invoking the power
vested in the High Court under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C.: —
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by
the accused is sound, reasonable, and
indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and
impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by
the accused, would rule out the assertions
contained in the charges levelled against the
accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject
and overrule the factual assertions contained in
the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as
false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon
by the accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is
such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial
would result in an abuse of process of the court,
and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative,
judicial conscience of the High Court should
persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings,
in exercise of power vested in it under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides
doing justice to the accused, would save precious
court time, which would otherwise be wasted in
holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising
therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same
would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.
29
[(See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor
(Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]”
[Emphasis supplied]
33. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the case at hand,
we find that the material relied upon by the
appellants in the present case, particularly the CCTV
footage forming part of the chargesheet, is of
unimpeachable provenance and reliability, having
been collected during investigation and forming part
of prosecution’s own record. The footage, which was
heavily relied upon by both the sides during the
course of arguments, upon careful scrutiny, does not
depict the appellants participating in any act of
assault or overt aggression, thereby substantially
dislodging the factual foundation of the allegations
against them. The said material stands unrefuted in
any meaningful manner and is of such character that
it cannot be lightly brushed aside even at the stage
when the Court is considering a prayer for quashing
the proceedings of the criminal case at its inception.
34. In this backdrop, compelling appellant Nos. 1, 2
and 3 to face a full-fledged criminal trial would serve
no meaningful purpose. The continuation of such
proceedings, in face of total lack of credible material
30
connecting them with the alleged offences, would
amount to misuse of the criminal process. The
present case, therefore, satisfies each of the
parameters delineated in Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani (supra) . Where reliable and
unimpeachable material demonstrably displaces the
factual basis of the accusations and the prosecution
is unable to effectively counter the same, the Court
would be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction
to prevent injustice. Such an approach not only
accords justice to the accused but also obviates the
wastage of precious judicial time on proceedings
which, on the admitted material, do not hold a
reasonable prospect of culminating in conviction.
35. As a sequitur to the foregoing discussion, we are
of the considered opinion that the impugned
th
judgment and order dated 8 March, 2024 passed by
the High Court cannot be sustained in law and the
same deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The
appeals preferred by appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are
accordingly allowed.
36. Consequently, Charge Sheet No. 135 of 2022,
filed under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506,
509, 427 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
31
arising out of FIR No. 150 of 2022 registered at Police
Station Survey Park and pending in ACGR No. 4659
of 2022 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, insofar as
it relates to appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, stand quashed.
37. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
….……………………J.
(N. V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 06, 2026.
32