Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dulal Kumbhakar vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 13 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLEJUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
C.R.R. 1739 of 2022
Dulal Kumbhakar
-Vs-
State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satatup Purakayastha
Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty
Mr. Jagriti Bhattacharya
For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP
Mr. Bitasok Banerjee
For UIDAI (Aadhar Authority) : Mr. Arun Kumar Maiti (Mohanty)
Mr. Jasojeet Mukherjee
Mr. R. R. Mohanty
Hearing concluded on : 23.05.2025
Judgment on : 13.06.2025
UDAY KUMAR, J.: -
1. This revisional application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeks the extraordinary relief of
quashing First Information Report (FIR) bearing Manbazar Police Station
Case No. 47 of 2018, dated September 7, 2018, and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, including G.R. Case No. 1187 of 2018,
pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia. The
petitioner, Dulal Kumbhakar, stands formally arraigned for alleged
contraventions of Sections 419, 420, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code,
2
1860 (IPC), Sections 34, 35, and 42 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of
Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016
(hereinafter, 'the Aadhaar Act, 2016'), and Sections 66C and 66D of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000). The fundamental
premise of the petitioner's challenge is that the continuation of these
criminal proceedings constitutes a manifest abuse of the legal process,
being both factually unfounded and legally untenable.
2. The prosecution against the petitioner emanates from a written
complaint dated September 7, 2018, lodged by a Section Officer from the
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The gravamen of the
complaint alleges that the petitioner, Dulal Kumbhakar, engaged in
impersonation by "wilfully allowing his fingerprints to be used for the
generation of an Aadhaar identity of another person," identified as his
brother, Subal Kumbhakar. This alleged act occurred on February 16,
2014. It was further claimed that the petitioner subsequently attempted
to fraudulently update the demographic particulars of this Aadhaar.
Following investigation, a charge sheet was submitted, though notably,
the investigating agency refrained from pressing more severe
accusations, citing an insufficiency of material.
3. The petitioner presented a contrasting narrative, asserting the absence
of his criminal intent, as on the alleged date of the incident, i.e., on
February 16, 2014, while he was assisting his physically disabled
brother, Subal Kumbhakar, at a crowded Aadhaar enrollment centre, his
fingerprints were inadvertently captured twice due to negligence of staff.
This purportedly led to his biometrics had been erroneously registered
3
against his brother's Aadhaar enrollment, while his own subsequent
enrollment failed.
4. Crucially, immediately upon discovery of anomaly and realizing of the
mistake, petitioner taken proactive effort for rectification by diligently
pursuing the matter with UIDAI authorities, submitting numerous
complaints and undertaking repeated enrollment attempts, all of which
were "rejected." Driven by the persistent failure to obtain his own
Aadhaar, he eventually resorted to legal redress, filing a Writ Petition in
2018 against the UIDAI, due to which his own correct Aadhaar number
(XXXX-XXXX-0455) could finally generated on May 22, 2019, by
cancellation of the erroneously generated Aadhaar (XXXX-XXXX-7693)
in his brother's name. It is pertinent that the UIDAI's own affidavit, filed
in his earlier writ petition, expressly acknowledged the possibility of
biometric mismatches occurring due to issues like uncleaned scanners,
lending credence to the petitioner's explanation of an innocent mix-up
rather than a deliberate criminal act.
5. Procedurally, the petitioner candidly acknowledged filing a discharge
application before the Trial Court on March 16, 2020, prior to initiating
the present revisional application. He explained this sequence as a direct
consequence of the unforeseen challenges posed by the global COVID-19
pandemic, which brought normal court proceedings to a standstill.
Faced with incessant adjournments at the Trial Court and severe
professional detriment occasioned by the pendency of the criminal case,
the petitioner contends he was compelled by exigent circumstances to
seek a more expeditious remedy from this higher forum.
4
6. Mr. Satarup Purakayastha, Learned Counsel for the petitioner
fundamentally assailed the criminal proceedings on four key grounds:
(i) the impermissible retrospective application of the Aadhaar Act,
2016, for an act committed prior to its enforcement, violating
Article 20(1) of the Constitution;
(ii) the absence of essential ingredients for the IPC offenses
(Sections 419, 420, 468), particularly the lack of "delivery of
property" and criminal mens rea for cheating and forgery;
(iii)the inapplicability of the IT Act provisions (Sections 66C, 66D)
due to the absence of "wilful" intent, given the explanation of an
inadvertent mix-up and UIDAI's own acknowledgements; and
(iv) the contention that the entire prosecution was an abuse of
process, devoid of criminal intent and contrary to the
petitioner's consistent efforts at rectification.
(v) the petitioner's subsequent conduct, meticulously detailed,
demonstrably militated against any inference of criminal intent.
Far from seeking to benefit, the petitioner had diligently
pursued rectification since 2015 through numerous complaints,
multiple enrolment attempts, and ultimately a Writ Petition. The
eventual resolution, with the petitioner receiving his correct
Aadhaar and the erroneous one being cancelled, served as
conclusive proof that the anomaly was a rectifiable error, not a
malicious criminal enterprise.
5
(vi) He also addressed the procedural objection regarding the prior
discharge application, explaining the pandemic-induced
exigency.
7. Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP Learned Counsel for the State and Mr. Arun
Kumar Maiti (Mohanty) Learned Advocate representing the UIDAI
(Aadhar Authority) robustly resisted the prayer for quashing of the
proceeding, primarily asserting the sufficiency of material in the charge
sheet for prosecution. They contended that the "detection" of the
fraudulent act in 2016, post-Aadhaar Act's enforcement, negated
retrospectivity. A strong procedural objection was raised concerning the
petitioner's alleged suppression of the prior discharge application,
arguing that such non-disclosure ipso facto warranted dismissal, relying
on Raju Thapar and Others vs. Madan Lal Kapur. The UIDAI's affidavit
affirming "de-duplication" was presented as definitive proof of
impersonation, arguing that subsequent administrative resolution does
not expunge the original criminal act.
8. Based on the competing submissions and the material on record, this
Court formulates the following pivotal points for its judicial
determination:
(i) Whether the Aadhaar Act, 2016 (Sections 34, 35, 42), can be
applied retrospectively to an alleged act committed in 2014,
prior to its enforcement.
(ii) Whether the allegations, even prima facie, satisfy the essential
legal ingredients for offenses under Sections 419, 420, and 468
IPC, and Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act, 2000.
6
(iii) Whether the continuation of these criminal proceedings, in the
factual and legal context, constitutes an abuse of the process of
the Court, justifying intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(iv) Whether the petitioner's non-disclosure of a prior discharge
application mandates the outright dismissal of this revisional
application.
9. I have meticulously analysed the comprehensive submissions made by
the learned advocates, the intricate factual matrix, and the governing
legal principles, to arrive at its logical determination.
10. At the threshold, it is crucial to delineate the parameters of this Court's
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This provision vests in the
High Court extraordinary jurisdiction to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
This power, while vast, is to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and with
utmost circumspection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its seminal
judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, laid down
illustrative categories where such power can be invoked. Notably, these
include cases where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint, even if
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, or
where the criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide or maliciously
instituted. The inherent power is not to be used to stifle a legitimate
prosecution, but to ensure that the criminal justice system is not
perverted or misused for extraneous considerations, thereby causing
7
grave injustice. This principle has been recently reiterated in Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC Online SC
315, emphasizing that the power to quash should be exercised with
great circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases where a prima
facie case is not discernible or the proceedings are an abuse of process.
11. Addressing the first pivotal legal question concerns the applicability of
the Aadhaar Act, 2016, to an act committed before its enactment, is
deeply embedded in constitutional guarantees, dictates that penal
statutes operate prospectively, as is encapsulated in the Latin maxim lex
prospicit non respicit (the law looks forward, not backward), which serves
as a paramount safeguard against arbitrary criminalization. The
constitution enshrined these fundamental principles in Article 20(1) of
the Constitution of India, which dictates that "no person shall be
convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time
of the commission of the act charged as an offence." This constitutional
safeguard prohibits ex post facto laws, ensuring that an individual is
prosecuted only for actions that constituted an offense at the time of
their commission. The alleged act of fraudulent fingerprint usage in this
case unequivocally occurred on February 16, 2014. Conversely, the
penal provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, specifically Sections 34, 35,
and 42, upon which the prosecution relies, came into effect only on
September 12, 2016. Upon a thorough examination of the Aadhaar Act,
2016, I found no express provision within its text stipulating its
retrospective application. In the absence of such an explicit legislative
mandate, criminalizing an act that was not an offense under the specific
8
statute at the time of its commission would directly contravene Article
20(1) of the Constitution. The State's argument, attempting to
circumvent this constitutional protection by contending that the
"detection" of the fraudulent act occurred in 2016, is legally unsound.
The critical factor for determining the applicability of a penal statute is
unequivocally the date of the alleged offense, not the date of its discovery
or detection. To accept the State's proposition would be to erode the
constitutional safeguard against retrospective criminalization. Therefore,
this Court concludes that the prosecution of the petitioner under the
Aadhaar Act, 2016, for an act committed in 2014, is legally untenable
and an impermissible retrospective application of law. The charges
under Sections 34, 35, and 42 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, are
consequently unsustainable.
12. In respect of second point, I examined whether the allegations, even if
taken at their highest, satisfy the essential legal ingredients for the
offenses under the IPC and IT Act. For an offense under Section 420 IPC
(Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), a fundamental
and indispensable element is the "dishonest inducement of delivery of
property" from the victim to the accused. While an Aadhaar number is a
unique identification document, the complaint and the charge-sheet
conspicuously fail to clearly articulate how the alleged fraudulent
generation of the Aadhaar in 2014 directly led to the "delivery of any
property" by any person to the petitioner, or any discernible wrongful
gain to the petitioner, or wrongful loss to the UIDAI or any other entity,
at the time of the alleged commission. The mere issuance of an Aadhaar
9
number, without a clear and direct nexus to a dishonest inducement for
specific property delivery or economic benefit, cannot fulfill this crucial
statutory requirement. The mens rea for cheating, which requires a
dishonest intention to induce the person deceived to deliver property,
appears absent from the factual narrative, particularly when viewed in
light of the petitioner's subsequent and consistent actions to rectify the
error.
13. Similarly, for an offense of forgery with the intent to cheat under Section
468 IPC, the mens rea (criminal intent) for 'forgery' with the specific
'intent to cheat' must be unequivocally established. As defined in Section
463 IPC, forgery involves making a false document or electronic record
with intent to cause damage or injury, or to commit fraud, or to enable
another to commit fraud. The factual matrix presented by the petitioner,
particularly his consistent and protracted efforts to rectify the anomaly
since 2015--through numerous complaints to UIDAI and even by filing a
writ petition against the very authority--strongly negates any inference
of criminal mens rea for 'cheating' or 'forgery'. His subsequent actions
demonstrate a clear and persistent intent to correct an inadvertent error
and obtain his own legitimate Aadhaar, rather than an intent to
perpetuate a fraud or derive dishonest gain from the initial mix-up. The
absence of a deliberate intent to defraud at the time of the alleged act is
a critical missing link.
14. The element of "wilful" commission of identity theft or cheating by
personation by using a computer resource is an indispensable
prerequisite for the offenses under Sections 66C (punishment for
10
identity theft) and 66D (punishment for cheating by personation by
using computer resource) of the IT Act, 2000. The petitioner's narrative
of an inadvertent "mix-up" during a crowded and hurried enrollment
process, coupled with the significant detail that UIDAI's own affidavit
reportedly acknowledged the possibility of biometric mismatches due to
issues like inadequately cleaned fingerprint scanners, casts serious and
legitimate doubt on the presence of the necessary criminal intent
("wilful" act) for these specific digital offenses. The subsequent
administrative resolution of the Aadhaar issue, wherein the petitioner
finally received his correct Aadhaar number and the erroneously
generated Aadhaar of his brother was cancelled, further undermines the
premise of a deliberate and wilful act of identity theft or cheating by
personation. The essence of these sections lies in deliberate deception
with the specific intent to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. In the
given circumstances, where the petitioner's actions are demonstrably
geared towards rectifying an error rather than exploiting it, the requisite
criminal intent for these provisions appears conspicuously absent.
15. A holistic view of the factual matrix strongly indicates the absence of
criminal mens rea for any of the alleged offenses. The consistent and
proactive efforts made by the petitioner since 2015 to rectify the
Aadhaar anomaly--submitting numerous complaints, making repeated
enrollment attempts, and ultimately filing a writ petition against the
UIDAI--are antithetical to the conduct of an individual with fraudulent
intent. An individual engaged in deliberate fraud would typically seek to
conceal the anomaly, not diligently pursue its correction at multiple
11
levels, including judicial intervention. The fact that the petitioner
eventually succeeded in obtaining his correct Aadhaar, and the
erroneous one was cancelled, further supports the contention that the
initial incident was an inadvertent error or operational glitch rather than
a pre-meditated criminal enterprise. Moreover, the UIDAI's own
admission in an affidavit acknowledging the possibility of biometric
mismatches due to technical issues such as uncleaned scanners
provides crucial corroboration for the petitioner's narrative of an
innocent mix-up. This Court finds that the mens rea, which is the very
soul of criminal liability, is demonstrably absent from the conduct of the
petitioner.
16. The respondents have raised a strong procedural objection regarding the
petitioner’s alleged suppression of a material fact, namely the pendency
of a prior discharge application before the Trial Court. They contend that
such non-disclosure ipso facto warrants the dismissal of the revisional
application and have relied upon the Supreme Court’s pronouncement
in Raju Thapar and Others vs. Madan Lal Kapur, 2013 (3) SCC 330,
which, they argue, precludes simultaneous pursuit of discharge and
revisional remedies.
17. I acknowledge the paramount importance of full and candid disclosure
in legal proceedings. However, the petitioner has offered a plausible and
compelling explanation for the sequence of events. He admitted to filing
the discharge application on March 16, 2020, but meticulously
explained that this occurred immediately preceding the unprecedented
and unforeseen global COVID-19 pandemic, which caused an extensive
12
and prolonged cessation of normal court functioning. Faced with
incessant adjournments at the Trial Court and the severe professional
detriment caused by the pendency of the criminal case, he was
compelled by compelling and exigent circumstances to seek more
expeditious and efficacious relief from this Hon’ble Court’s inherent
jurisdiction.
18. While the Raju Thapar case indeed emphasizes the principle against
simultaneous pursuit of remedies and the importance of disclosure, it
must be read in context. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
are extraordinary and are specifically meant to secure the ends of justice
and prevent abuse of process. In situations where exceptional
circumstances, such as a global pandemic causing prolonged judicial
paralysis, compel a party to seek relief from a higher forum, a strict and
absolute application of the non-disclosure rule, leading to outright
dismissal, might itself result in injustice and a miscarriage of justice.
The fundamental question for this Court, in exercising its inherent
powers, is whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings is
justified on merits, irrespective of the procedural overlap that arose due
to force majeure. Given the substantial legal infirmities in the
prosecution’s case (impermissible retrospective application of law,
absence of mens rea, lack of essential ingredients for the alleged
offenses), I find that the procedural lapse, though noted, is sufficiently
explained by the petitioner and does not override the compelling need to
prevent a clear abuse of process. The fact that a writ petition concerning
the same incident was previously filed also does not per se preclude the
13
present revisional application; the remedies, while related, are distinct in
their objectives and legal pathways. In conclusion, while noting the
procedural objection, I find that it does not serve as an absolute bar to
exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., especially
when there are substantive grounds demonstrating a clear abuse of the
legal process and a strong case for quashing the proceedings on merits.
19. Synthesizing the foregoing analysis, it is evident that the continuation of
criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a manifest abuse
of the process of law. The charges under the Aadhaar Act are legally
unsustainable due to their impermissible retrospective application. The
charges under the IPC and IT Act lack the fundamental ingredient of
criminal mens rea, which is conspicuously negated by the petitioner’s
consistent and diligent efforts to rectify the inadvertent error. The
factual narrative, corroborated in part by the UIDAI’s own admissions,
points towards an operational anomaly rather than a deliberate criminal
act. Subjecting the petitioner to the rigors and stigma of a criminal trial,
when the very foundational elements of the alleged offenses are absent
and the initial act appears to be an innocent mix-up diligently sought to
be rectified, would cause grave injustice. This Court is satisfied that the
present case squarely falls within the categories identified by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal where the inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised to prevent the perversion of the
criminal justice system and to secure the ends of justice.
20. In view of the above deliberations I conclude that :
14
(a) Penal statutes operate prospectively unless expressly stated
otherwise, and prosecuting an act committed before the
enactment of a penal statute violates Article 20(1) of the
Constitution of India. The date of the alleged offense, not its
detection, is paramount for the applicability of criminal law.
(b) For offenses of cheating (IPC Sections 419, 420) and forgery
(IPC Section 468), the element of dishonest inducement of
property delivery or a specific intent to defraud (mens rea) at
the time of the act is indispensable. Similarly, for identity
theft and cheating by personation under the IT Act (Sections
66C, 66D), a “wilful” criminal intent must be established.
(c) The subsequent conduct of an accused, particularly diligent
efforts to rectify an alleged error, can be a crucial factor in
negating criminal mens rea.
(d) The High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings that are based
on an impermissible retrospective application of law, lack
essential ingredients of the alleged offenses, or otherwise
constitute a clear abuse of the process of the Court, thereby
ensuring justice.
(e) While disclosure is paramount, a procedural lapse, such as
non-disclosure of a prior discharge application, may not be an
absolute bar to exercising inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. if exceptional circumstances (e.g., global pandemic)
15
are credibly explained and there are substantive grounds for
quashing the proceedings on merits.
21. In light of the detailed analysis and findings I am of the opinion that the
criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, Dulal Kumbhakar,
are legally untenable and constitute a manifest abuse of the process of
law. Allowing these proceedings to continue would be an exercise in
futility and would cause undue hardship and injustice to the petitioner.
22. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Petition No. 1739 of 2022, is hereby
allowed.
23. The First Information Report bearing Manbazar Police Station Case No.
47 of 2018, dated September 7, 2018, and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, including G.R. Case No. 1187 of 2018, presently
pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, are
hereby quashed and set aside.
24. Any bail bonds furnished by the petitioner in connection with this case
shall stand cancelled.
25. Any property seized in connection with the aforementioned case, if any,
shall be forthwith returned to the rightful owner.
26. Interim order/orders, if any, passed by this Court during the pendency
of this revisional application, stand vacated.
27. There shall be no order as to cost.
28. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent forthwith to the Learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, for necessary action, record, and
compliance.
16
29. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment and order duly
downloaded from the official website of the High Court.
30. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with requisite
formalities.
(Uday Kumar, J.)