Criminal case against Army soldier quashed after military records proved he was on duty in Imphal during alleged Hooghly assault

The petitioners, two brothers, challenged Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 445 of 2023 dated 6 December 2023 and Chargesheet No. 20 of 2024, arising from G.R. Case No. 3095 of 2023, alleging offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case arose from a neighbourhood dispute concerning a common passage and drainage easement, alongside pending civil litigation in Title Suit No. 470 of 2023.

Opposite Party No. 2 alleged that on 5 October 2023 the petitioners and unknown associates wrongfully restrained and assaulted him, demanded that his sister vacate property, looted ₹7,500, and issued threats.

During investigation, the Commanding Officer of the petitioner No. 1’s military unit certified that he was on active duty in Imphal, Manipur, at the relevant time.

The investigating agency consequently submitted a Final Report in respect of petitioner No. 1, but filed a chargesheet against petitioner No. 2.

The petitioners sought quashing of the entire proceeding under Sections 482 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that the case was a mala fide counterblast to the civil dispute.

The State and opposite party No. 2 opposed quashing, relying on eyewitness statements, injury reports and other case-diary materials against petitioner No. 2.

1. Whether the criminal proceeding against petitioner No. 1, who had been exonerated by the investigating agency on the basis of an officially verified military alibi, constituted an abuse of the process of court and was liable to be quashed.

2. Whether the materials in the case diary disclosed a prima facie case against petitioner No. 2, notwithstanding the pending civil property dispute, or whether the entire prosecution was liable to be quashed as a malicious counterblast.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

It applied the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the categories permitting quashing where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, instituted with an ulterior motive, or based on allegations that are absurd or inherently improbable.

The Court further relied on Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751, for the principle that the existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal prosecution where independent criminal ingredients are prima facie disclosed.

It also applied the principle that disputed questions of fact and ordinary pleas of alibi are generally matters for trial, but that an unimpeachable, officially authenticated record demonstrating the accused’s physical impossibility of being present may justify threshold interference.

The alleged offences were under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

The Court distinguished between the two petitioners.

In respect of petitioner No. 1, the military certification was an official and unimpeachable record, and the investigating agency itself accepted that he was absent from the place of occurrence by submitting a Final Report.

His alleged presence in Hooghly was therefore physically impossible, bringing the prosecution within the Bhajan Lal categories concerning absurdity, mala fides and abuse of process.

In contrast, petitioner No. 2 was locally present, and the case diary contained eyewitness statements and injury reports which prima facie supported allegations of wrongful restraint and simple hurt.

Although the prosecution arose against the background of a civil dispute, the Court held that the alleged criminal ingredients could not be rejected at the threshold.

The truthfulness of the witnesses, the nature of the altercation and the parties’ competing allegations involved disputed questions of fact requiring trial.

The proceedings arising from Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 445 of 2023, including Chargesheet No. 20 of 2024 and G.R. Case No. 3095 of 2023, were quashed and set aside insofar as petitioner No. 1, Arun Prasad, was concerned, with the Court noting his prior exoneration and dropping from the case through the Final Report.

The prayer for quashing as against petitioner No. 2, Arjun Prasad, was rejected, and the trial was directed to proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations on the merits.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed expeditiously; interim orders were vacated, pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.