Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amartya Sinha And Others vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 15 July, 2025
2025:CHC-AS:1292
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 2725 of 2022
Amartya Sinha and Others
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
With
C.R.R. 2136 of 2022
Pankaj Kumar Das & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
With
C.R.R. 2138 of 2022
Pankaj Kumar Das & Anr.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy Adv.
In CRR 2725 of 2022 Mr. Amarendra Chakraborty, Adv.
& Opposite Party No. 2 Mr. Tonmay Chatterjee, Adv.
In CRR 2136 of 2022
& CRR 2138 of 2022
2025:CHC-AS:1292
2
For the Petitioners : Mr. Souvik Mitter, Adv.
In CRR 2136 of 2022 Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Adv.
& CRR 2138 of 2022 Mr. S. S. Saha, Adv.
& Opposite Party No. 2
In CRR 2725 of 2022
For the State : Mr. Imran Ali, Adv.
In CRR 2725 of 2022 Ms. Debjani Sahu, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. APP
In CRR 2136 of 2022 Mr. Dipankar Paramanick, Adv.
& CRR 2138 of 2022
Heard On : 17.04.2025
Judgment On : 15.07.2025
2025:CHC-AS:1292
3
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1.
All the three Criminal Revisional applications are taken up
together for the sake of convenience and for passing a common
Judgment, as the disputes cropped up due to property related issue
between the two families of next-door neighbours.
2. CRR No. 2136 of 2022 has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners, namely,
Pankaj Kumar Das, Pradyumna Das and Subrata Mondal seeking
quashing of the Complaint Case being AC 1845 of 2021 initiated
under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 pending
before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore, South 24
Parganas and the impugned order dated 26.11.2021 thereby the
Learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against the
present petitioners.
3. The aforesaid complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2
– Hiran Kumar Sinha under Section 200 of the CrPC before the
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 09.09.2021 against
the present petitioners alleging, inter alia, as under: –
“The complainant is the owner of landed property
measuring about 2 cottahs 10 chittacks 16 sq ft by a
registered deed dated 03.03.2000. Thereafter, the
2025:CHC-AS:1292
4complainant obtained sanctioned plan from KMC and
constructed one storied building. The complainant
suddenly found that postal correspondence
Governmental documents and electricity bill were not
getting delivered to him. Thereafter, he came to learn
that the address of the complainant is same as of
Pankaj Kumar Das. Thereafter, such address was
corrected by the KMC. The said Pankaj Kumar Das
entered into criminal conspiracy using the premises
no. 493-A, Bachar Para Road and took electricity
connection, LPG gas and also took water supply
connection by submitting false documents. The said
Pankaj Kumar Das, using such address, secured his
admission at Indian School of mines. The
assessor/collector, KMC allotted different address to
the said Pankaj Kumar Das and due to previous
grudge, caused various sorts of disturbances and
annoyance towards the peaceful living and enjoyment
of the complainant. The said Pankaj Kumar Das along
with one Subrata Mondal, knowing about the
evidence of the complainant and his property on the
western side, cunningly and surreptitiously obtained
sanctioned plan by showing the complainant’s
property as premises no. 493, Bachar Para Road
instead of 493-A, Bachar Para Road and executed
boundary declaration and cheated the complainant.”
2025:CHC-AS:1292
5
4. Subsequently, upon transfer of the said case before the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore for its disposal, the
Learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 420/120B of the
IPC after recording initial deposition of opposite party no.
2/complainant as P.W. 1, and the process was issued.
5. Though the contention of the petitioners is that the
allegations levelled against them are false, frivolous and vexatious
and that they are in no way connected with the offence as alleged by
the de-facto complainant. Hence, this application.
6. CRR No. 2138 of 2022 has been filed under Section 401
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the
petitioners, namely, Pankaj Kumar Das and Pradyumna Das
challenging the order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in connection with
Thakurpukur P.S. Case No. 49/2021 dated 10.03.2021 under
Sections 120B/467/468/471/324/323/354/506/511 of the Indian
Penal Code. By the said order, the Learned Magistrate directed
further investigation of the case by the police. The aforesaid
Thakurpukur P.S. Case was initiated at the behest of opposite party
no. 2 – Hiran Kumar Sinha who alleged, inter alia, as under: –
2025:CHC-AS:1292
6“On 15.12.2020 at about 11 am, one Pankaj Kumar Das
threw garbage to the main entrance of the complainant’s
house and on protest, the accused person grew furious
and started to abuse the complainant and his family
members in filthy language and threatened the
complainant with dire consequences and said that he
would entangle son of the complainant in some false
cases and assaulted the complainant. When the wife of
the complainant tried to rescue the complainant, the
accused persons also assaulted the complainant’s wife
and tried to outrage her modesty.”
7. The case of the petitioners in the aforesaid matter is that the
case was initiated either falsely or due to a misunderstanding of the
actual facts. After thorough investigation, a final report being No.
47/21 dated 31.07.2021 under Sections 120B/467/468/471/324/
323/354/506/511 of the Indian Penal Code, opining the case to be a
mistake of fact and was submitted before the Learned Magistrate on
16.02.2022.
8. However, the opposite party no. 2 filed a Narazi Petition
against the said final report. The Learned Magistrate allowed the said
Narazi Petition and directed the investigating agency to conduct
further investigation on 02.05.2022. Hence, this application.
2025:CHC-AS:1292
7
9. CRR No. 2725 of 2022 has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners, namely,
Amartya Sinha, Hiran Kumar Sinha (the complainant of the aforesaid
two cases) and Ruma Sinha seeking quashing of the proceedings
being A.C.G.R. Case No. 1995 of 2022 arising out of Thakurpukur
P.S. Case No. 127/22 dated 12.05.2022 under Sections
341/323/324/509/354/506/114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Alipore.
10. In this case, Smt. Parul Das, wife of Pankaj Kumar Das,
accused in aforesaid two cases made allegations, inter alia, against
the aforesaid petitioners as under: –
“With due, respect, I, Smt. Parul Das, wife of Sri
Pankaj Kumar Das of 493B, Bachar Para Road, P.O.
& P.S. Thakurpukur, Kolkata -700 063 do hereby
state that on 04.05.2022 at about 9 A.M. while I
was going to market, those miscreants namely 1.
Amartya Singh son of Hiron Kumar Sinha 2. Hiron
Kumar Sinha son of Late Jyotindra Nath Sinha and
3. Ruma Sinha wife of Hiron Kumar Sinha all of
493A, Bachar Para Road, P.O. & P.S. Thakurpukur,
Kolkata -700063 wrongfully restrained and confined
me on the road and thereby abused me in most
filthy languages and on protest, they turned furious
2025:CHC-AS:1292
8and assaulted me with a bamboo slit, kick, fist and
blows and were using some words and gesture in
order to insult my modesty and also threatening me
by saying – “Ake bare mere felbo. Ekhane thakte
debo no. Tor kon baba ache toke banchay dekhbo.
Tor chaler pass port, visa cancel kora or life sesh
kore debo.
In the mean time, Hiron Kumar Sinha and Ruma
Sinha caught my hair, fell me down on the road and
tore my wearing apparel, also started assaulting me
by uttering slang languages and finding no other
way, I raised my voice and the local people came to
the spot and seeing them those miscreants fled
away by saying ‘Pore dekhe nebo, etc.For such assault, I sustained pain and injury on my
person and thereby I went to Vidyasagar Hospital
for my treatment and I was so moaning lay in pain
that I informed Police on that date vide G.D. Entry
No. 265 Thakurpukur P.S. dated 04.05.2022.”
11. Though the case of the petitioners in this case is that the
criminal case was initiated against them by the opposite party no. 2,
who is the wife of Pankaj Kr. Das, as a counter-blast to the aforesaid
two criminal cases i.e. one complaint case and another police case
initiated against the husband and son of the opposite party no. 2,
with mala fide intention and with an ulterior motive for wreaking
2025:CHC-AS:1292
9
vengeance upon the petitioners and also in order to spite them due to
private and personal grudge. Hence, this application.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in
CRR 2136 of 2022 and CRR 2138 of 2022 vehemently argued and
submitted that two proceedings have been initiated on the same
cause of action. One is under Section 200 of the CrPC and another is
under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. It is contended that both the cases
are false, fabricated and frivolous. Petitioner no. 1 is father, petitioner
no. 2 is son and petitioner no. 3 in CRR 2136 of 2022 was the
erstwhile owner of the property. The central issue in these cases
arises out of a property dispute. It is further submitted that nearly
half of the disputed land was purchased by petitioner no. 1, Pankaj
Kumar Das, through a registered sale deed.
13. It is also submitted that both the cases are running
simultaneously although the cause of action arose on the same set of
facts. The allegations made in both the cases do not constitute any
cognizable offence rather constitute non-cognizable offences. No
investigation is permissible by the police officer without any order of
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. But, without considering the actual facts, the
Learned Court below issued summons against the present petitioners
2025:CHC-AS:1292
10
mechanically in AC 1845 of 2021. The second case, it is submitted,
relates to the same incident and was diarised again.
14. The factual background, as narrated by the petitioners is
that one Sudhanshu Mondal, the father of the petitioner no. 3,
Subrata Mondal, was the actual owner of the Plot No. 493, Bachar
Para Road, Ward No. 125, Kolkata – 700 063 measuring an area of 5
Cottahs and 7 Chittacks. Out of the said land, he sold part of the said
land measuring an area of 2 Cottahs, 10 Chittacks and 10 Sq. Ft. to
the Opposite Party, Hiran Kumar Sinha. Newly purchased land was
numbered as premises No. 493-A, Bachar Para Road, Kolkata-700
063 in favour of the opposite party no. 2 – Hiran Kumar Sinha.
15. It was further submitted that after the death of Sudhanshu
Mondal, his two sons, namely, Subrata Mondal and Debarata Mondal
became the joint owners of the rest of the land measuring about 2
Cottahs 5 Chatak 24 Sq. Ft. The said remaining portion of land was
purchased by the petitioner no. 1, Pankaj Kumar Das and applied for
a sanction plan for the portion he purchased from the statutory
authority and paid the requisite fees to the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation for such purpose.
16. The Corporation accepted such fees and sanctioned the
building plan in favour of the petitioner no. 1, Pankaj Kumar Das for
2025:CHC-AS:1292
11
493A, Bachar Para Road. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation also
accepted the property taxes and gave a conversion certificate to the
petitioner no. 1. The KMC erred in allotting the same premises no. i.e.
493A, Bachar Para Road in favour of the petitioner no. 1 as well as in
favour of opposite party no. 2- Hiran Kumar Sinha. It was fully
unaware of the allotment of premises no. 493A, Bachar Para Road
also in favour of Hiran Kumar Sinha.
17. The opposite party no. 2- Hiran Kumar Sinha filed a title suit
before the Learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court,
Alipore and the same is pending. The petitioner no. 1- Pankaj Kumar
Das knowing the said facts, approached the KMC for correction of
assessment and allotment of new premises number for his plot of
land. Notices were served on all the parties and, after hearing, the
KMC authorities have allotted and renumbered the wrongly given
premises no. 493A and made it 493B, Bachar Para Road vide order of
Assessor Collector dated 11.09.2019 and after such correction,
communication has been made by the KMC, thereafter, petitioner
changed his premises number in his Aadhaar Card, Epic Card,
Electric Bill, KMC taxes, water supply etc. from 493A Bachar Para
Road to 493B, Bachar Para Road. Despite full knowledge of the entire
facts, the opposite party no. 2- Hiran Kumar Sinha only to harass
filed a complaint case being No. AC 1845/2021 alleging offences
2025:CHC-AS:1292
12
punishable under Sections 420/120B/468/471/34 of the IPC and
cognizance was taken under Sections 420/120B of the IPC.
Therefore, the Learned Court below, while taking cognizance, failed to
appreciate that the premises number allotted by the KMC to the
petitioner as 493A, Bachar Para Road as well as opposite party no. 2
as 493A, Bachar Para Road was due to error and inadvertently
allotted the same premises no. 493A, despite the existence of two
different premises and owners. Petitioners had no role to play or there
is no question of any forging document or cheating. The complaint
itself reveals that the KMC corrected the premises numbers.
Therefore, the said proceeding is required to be quashed and the
process was issued by the Learned Magistrate is also required to be
set aside as the matter was totally civil in nature and civil suit has
already been initiated by the opposite party no. 2 and the same is
pending. In addition, the dispute regarding premises numbers have
been set at rest by the KMC after correction.
18. It was further submitted that the complainant also initiated
another complaint under Section 156(3) on a similar set of allegations
and the same was directed to register as an FIR being Thakurpukur
P.S. Case No. 49/2021 dated 10.03.2021 under Sections
120B/467/468/471/324/323/354/506/511 of the Indian Penal
Code. However, the same was initially ended in FRT as case is of the
2025:CHC-AS:1292
13
civil in nature and a civil suit is pending between the parties and
KMC has already corrected its error and communicated the same by
its official memo to the parties. Petitioner no. 1 is retired from service
and his son is a brilliant student and who has a brilliant academic
career. He passed his B. Tech from Jadavpur University and M. Tech
from Dhanbad and presently pursuing PhD. Degree from Kanpur IIT.
So, the question of cheating or criminal conspiracy does not arise or
throwing garbage to the main entrance of the complainant’s house
and on protest, started to abuse the complainant and his family
members in filthy language and threatened the complainant with dire
consequences that he would entangle son of the complainant in some
false cases and assaulted the complainant is totally false case. It is a
false allegation and no such incident ever occurred. Therefore, both
the cases are liable to be quashed.
19. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners in CRR 2725 of 2022 strenuously argued and further
submitted that Thakurpukur P.S. Case No. 127/22 dated 12.05.2022
under Sections 341/323/324/509/354/506/114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 has been initiated by Parul Das, wife of Pankaj Kumar
Das as a counter blast of two previous cases initiated by the
petitioner no. 2 – Hiran Kumar Sinha against her husband, erstwhile
owner of the property and son of Pankaj Kr Das. One case has been
2025:CHC-AS:1292
14
filed under Section 200 of CrPC and another case under Section
156(3) of CrPC as they have committed criminal offences.
20. It was further submitted that Pankaj Kumar Das entered
into criminal conspiracy using the premises no. 493-A, Bachar Para
Road and took electricity connection, LPG and also took water supply
connection by submitting false documents. Pankaj Kumar Das, using
such address, secured his admission at Indian School of Mines. The
assessor/collector, KMC allotted a different address to the said
Pankaj Kumar Das and due to previous grudge, caused various sorts
of disturbances and annoyance to the peaceful living and enjoyment
of the complainant. The said Pankaj Kumar Das along with one
Subrata Mondal, knowing about the evidence of the complainant and
his property on the western side, cunningly and surreptitiously
obtained sanctioned plan by showing the complainant’s property as
premises no. 493, Bachar Para Road instead of 493-A, Bachar Para
Road and executed boundary declaration and cheated the
complainant and further threw garbage to the main entrance of the
complainant’s house and on protest, started to abuse the
complainant and his family members using filthy language and
threatened the complainant with dire consequences that he would
entangle son of the complainant in some false cases and assaulted
the complainant.
2025:CHC-AS:1292
15
21. However, the Investigating Officer has not properly
investigated the case and finally submitted a final report as the
mistake of facts. Therefore, the Learned Magistrate rightly directed for
further investigation as the initial investigation was not properly
done, as such, both the Criminal Revisional applications are liable to
set aside.
22. The learned counsels representing the state produced the
Case Diaries of both cases i.e. (1) Thakurpukur P.S. Case No. 127/22
dated 12.05.2022 under Sections 341/323/324/509/354/506/114
of the Indian Penal Code and (2) Thakurpukur P.S. Case no. 49/22
dated 10.03.2021 under Sections 120B/467/468/471/324/323/354
/506/511 of the Indian Penal Code and further submitted that
sufficient materials were collected during the investigation against
the accused persons, therefore, both the cases need to be continued
for trial to unearth the truth. Therefore, these applications are liable
to be dismissed.
23. Considering the rival arguments advanced by the Learned
Counsels on behalf of their respective parties and submissions made
thereof and careful perusal of the case diaries produced by the State
in both the aforesaid cases, this Court is of the considered view that
the genesis of all three cases are due to inadvertent mistake on the
2025:CHC-AS:1292
16
part of KMC. Hiran Kumar Sinha and Pankaj Kumar Das have
purchased their respective share of the premises No. 493, Bachar
Para Road from the erstwhile owners. Initially, a premises number
was allotted as 493-A, Bachar Para Road in favour of Hiran Kumar
Sinha and, subsequently, Pankaj Kumar Das was also allotted a
similar number as 493A, Bachar Para Road. But subsequently, an
application was filed by Pankaj Kumar Das for correction of the
number of premises with the concerned authority, when it came to
his knowledge. The KMC has after consideration of the issue settled
the dispute and allotted two different numbers to the respective
purchasers. 493A, Bachar Para Road has been allotted in favour of
Hiran Kumar Sinha and 493B, Bachar Para Road has been allotted in
favour of Pankaj Kumar Das. Later, such disputes turned into
criminal acts such as abusing each other with filthy languages,
threatening and physical assault though both parties are next-door
neighbours.
24. Despite the said facts, Hiran Kumar Sinha filed a complaint
case under Section 200 of CrPC and another complaint under Section
156(3) of the CrPC on the self-same issue. Not only that, Hiran
Kumar Sinha also filed a title suit and the same is also pending.
Though, the matter is purely civil in nature. The said complaint
under Section 200 of CrPC should not be continued otherwise it
2025:CHC-AS:1292
17
would be definitely an abuse of process of law as the complaint itself
reveals the KMC has corrected the address of the parties herein. It
was a mistake on the part of KMC while allotting premises number to
them. After correction of the premises number, the accused Pankaj
Kumar Das has changed his premises number in his Aadhaar Card,
Epic Card, Electric Bill, KMC taxes, water supply etc. from 493A
Bachar Para Road to 493B, Bachar Para Road.
25. From the entire evidence and the documents placed before
this Court and on perusal of the CD, this Court finds there are no
materials against the present petitioners with regard to offences
punishable under Sections 420/120B of the IPC. The complaint was
initiated by suppressing all the material facts and, therefore, the
same is liable to be quashed, whereas, the FIR being Thakurpukur
P.S. Case No. 49/2021 dated 10.03.2021 under Sections
120B/467/468/471/ 324/323/354/506/511 of the Indian Penal
Code was initiated on the basis of complaint made before the Learned
Magistrate and, after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a
final report as a mistake of fact. But, subsequently, after filing Narazi
Petition by the complainant, Hiran Kumar Sinha, the same was
allowed by the Learned Magistrate on 02.05.2022 as it was found
that there were two vital deficiencies in the material available in the
final report. Firstly, no steps were taken by the Investigating Officer
2025:CHC-AS:1292
18
to examine the complainant’s wife under Section 164 of the CrPC,
who was the victim of the criminal offence punishable under Sections
323/324/354/511 of the Indian Penal Code. She was assaulted by
the accused persons or used criminal force on her with intent to
outrage her modesty, when the incident happened on 15.12.2020 at
about 11 am and secondly, the wife of the complainant was also not
examined under Section 161 of the CrPC. She is a vital witness,
whose statement is necessary for the purpose of filing Final Report.
Therefore, the Learned Magistrate has rightly directed for further
investigation as the whole investigation appears perfunctory and
submitted in a mechanical manner.
26. In view of the facts, until and unless the statements of the
victim are recorded by the investigating officer, actual truth cannot be
uncovered. Without proper investigation, it would be very difficult to
come to a conclusion that the case was falsely initiated. Thus, in
order to prevent miscarriage of justice, the matter requires further
investigation. Therefore, I do not find any sufficient or cogent ground
to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Magistrate for
further investigation. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
27. So far as another FIR being Thakurpukur P.S. Case No.
127/22 dated 12.05.2022 under Sections 341/323/324/509/354
2025:CHC-AS:1292
19
/506/114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is concerned, this court
finds that the complainant, Parul Das lodged complaint against the
accused persons. The allegation made against them is that on
04.05.2022 at about 9 A.M. while she was going to market all the
accused persons wrongfully restrained and confined her on the road
and thereafter abused her in the most filthy languages and on
protest, they turned furious and assaulted her with a bamboo slit,
kick, fist and blows and were using some words and gestures in order
to insult her modesty and also threatening her with dire
consequences. During investigation sufficient prima facie material
was collected. The injury report of Putul Das was also collected by the
Investigating Officer. Upon perusal of such injury report and other
materials available in the case diary, this Court finds that a prima
facie case has been established against the accused persons. In such
a situation, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to quash
the proceeding without conducting trial. Trial is needed to unearth
the actual truth. Thus, the application is devoid of merit and, as
such, the same is liable to be dismissed. In both the complaints
sufficient ingredients are available to constitute the offence as alleged
by the respective complainants and the alleged offence is cognizable
in nature.
2025:CHC-AS:1292
20
28. In the light of the aforesaid discussions and observations,
CRR No. 2138 of 2022 and CRR No. 2725 of 2022 are, thus,
dismissed. Whereas, CRR No. 2136 of 2022 is, thus allowed.
Consequently, connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed
of.
29. The only proceeding being AC 1845 of 2021 under Section
200 of the Code of Criminal procedure now pending before the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas is
hereby quashed insofar as the accused/Petitioners, namely, Pankaj
Kumar Das, Pradyumna Das and Subrata Mondal are concerned and
order dated 26.11.2021 whereby cognizance was taken is also set
aside.
30. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
31. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the respective
courts for information and taking necessary steps.
32 Case diaries be return to the respective counsels for the
state.
33. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment
uploaded on the official website of this Court.
2025:CHC-AS:1292
21
34. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
legal formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
P. Adak (P.A.)