Facts
The petitioner (a 74-year-old retired man) and his brothers executed a Power of Attorney (PoA) in favor of Opposite Party No. 2 (OP2) in 2019 for land development
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner subsequently filed a criminal case (FIR 505/2021) and a civil suit against OP2, alleging that OP2 used the PoA to fraudulently sell land worth Rs. 40 lakhs
Source reference: p. 2-3OP2 was arrested in that case
Source reference: p. 3Following his release on bail, OP2 filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on September 18, 2021, alleging that on July 23, 2019, the petitioner and others assaulted him, outraged his wife's modesty, and snatched money
Source reference: p. 2The Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat, took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner on November 21, 2022
Source reference: p. 4The petitioner moved the High Court to quash the proceeding
Source reference: p. 1-2Issues
1. Whether the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of law due to being a "counterblast" or filed with mala fide intent.
Source reference: p. 3, 92. Whether the delay of 14 months in filing the complaint, without cogent explanation or compliance with Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., renders the prosecution unsustainable.
Source reference: p. 4, 7-8Law Applied
The Court primarily applied the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of law
Source reference: p. 7It relied on the landmark principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically categories (1), (5), and (7), which allow quashing where allegations do not disclose an offence or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
Source reference: p. 9The Court further cited Umashankar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 INSC 653], emphasizing that summoning an accused is a serious matter and the High Court must weed out vexatious litigation
Source reference: p. 6-7Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, which cautions against criminal prosecution being used as an instrument of harassment
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The Court observed that the complaint was filed 14 months after the alleged incident without any explanation for the delay or proof of prior intimation to the police
Source reference: p. 7-8It noted that the petitioner (a septuagenarian) had previously lodged a fraud case against OP2, leading to OP2’s arrest, suggesting the current complaint was a "counterblast" born out of grudge
Source reference: p. 8-9The Court found the allegations to be vague, lacking specific overt acts or medical evidence to support claims of physical assault or outraging of modesty
Source reference: p. 7-8Furthermore, the Magistrate failed to record reasons for taking cognizance despite the long delay and the existence of a pending civil suit where an injunction had been granted in favor of the petitioner
Source reference: p. 3, 7The Court concluded that the proceedings were an afterthought intended to harass the petitioner
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the proceeding was a vexatious "counterblast" to the petitioner's prior legal actions
The High Court allowed the Revisional Application and quashed the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 343 of 2021 pending before the 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat, against the petitioner. It held that allowing such a "lame prosecution" to continue would be an abuse of the process of law
Source reference: p. 4, 7, 10Original Court PDF
RANADEB ROY CHOWDHURYvsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in