Minu Das @ Minu Banerjee Nee Das vs Unknown on 8 August, 2025

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Minu Das @ Minu Banerjee Nee Das vs Unknown on 8 August, 2025

18   08.08
sg   2025                             C.R.R. 2212 of 2017

     Ct. No.
       22            In the matter of : Minu Das @ Minu Banerjee nee Das.
                                                         Petitioner.


                     Mr. Firdous Samim
                     Ms. Gopa Biswas
                     Mr. Altaf Hossain
                     Mr. Mainak Ghosal
                     Mr. Rishab Ahmed Khan
                     Mr. H. Z. Molla
                                         .... for the opposite party no.2.
                     Mr. Joydeep Roy
                     Mr. Dattatreya Dutta
                                         .... for the State.


               1.

O.P.1/State and O.P.2/KMC are represented by their

respective advocates.

2. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner Minu Das @ Minu

Banerjee nee Das, nor was any accommodation prayed for on

her behalf. This is not the first time that the petitioner has

failed to appear. The petitioner has not been represented for a

long time. She did not appear even on earlier occasions,

despite the learned advocates for O.P.2/KMC and O.P.1/State

attempting to serve notices on her. The service report reveals

that the petitioner was not residing at the address provided.

3. Furthermore, the learned advocate for O.P.2 submitted to the

Court that her previous advocate, who represented the

petitioner until November 22, 2024, has withdrawn from the

case.

4. Consequently, this Court directed that an administrative

notice be issued to the petitioner at her recorded address. The

report filed by the Assistant Registrar-XII on August 6, 2025,
2

indicates that no one by the name of Minu Das @ Minu

Banerjee nee Das resides at the address provided in the

revisional application. Given that this matter has been pending

since 2017 and there is a remote possibility of the petitioner’s

appearance, the Court has no alternative but to proceed with

the disposal of the case based on the material available on

record.

5. The present revisional application, filed by the petitioner Minu

Das under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code

(Cr.P.C.), seeks to quash the proceedings in G.R. Case No.

1614 of 2012. This case arose from New Market Police Station

Case No. 191 of 2014, dated April 23, 2012, under Sections

406/467/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The order of cognizance for the offense was taken on June 3,

2016, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court,

Calcutta.

6. The impugned criminal proceedings stemmed from a written

complaint from the Manager (Health) & in-charge of the

Burning Ghat, which was lodged with the Officer-in-charge,

New Market Police Station, on April 20, 2012. The complaint

was against Minu Das @ Minu Banerjee nee Das and others

(the petitioner) for making and using forged documents as

genuine in the assessment department and the Birth and

Death Certificate section of KMC. The purpose was to obtain a

mutation certificate for the premises at 10 D, Garpar Road,

Kolkata, by means of forgery. The petitioner, Minu Das @ Minu

Banerjee nee Das, had represented herself as the only
3

daughter and successor of Dipti Ganguly and Amar Nath

Ganguly. She claimed that her mother, Dipti Ganguly, died on

August 7, 1989, and Amar Nath Ganguly died on January 18,

1991, and she submitted their death certificates.

7. The “nefarious design of forgery” was deciphered when Dipti

Ganguly herself appeared on December 26, 2011, for a

hearing, where she disclosed that she was unmarried.

Accordingly, the mutation that had already been made in favor

of Minu Das @ Minu Banerjee nee Das, based on her false

representation, was canceled upon proper verification. It was

further alleged that the mutation was obtained fraudulently

with the help of some unscrupulous employees of the

Corporation with the intention to defraud the lawful interest of

Dipti Ganguly. Upon further verification regarding the

genuineness of the death certificates, the CMHO informed that

their death certificates were not available in the department.

He requested that legal action be initiated against them in light

of this complaint.

8. Accordingly, this FIR was lodged, which led to a thorough

investigation and the filing of a charge sheet under the same

sections. The charge sheet specifically revealed the petitioner

as the accused of fraudulently having her name mutated on

the premises at 10 D, Garpar Road, Kolkata, by impersonating

the actual owner, Dipti Ganguly, and submitting fabricated

death certificates. This fraudulent act was exposed when Dipti

Ganguly, who is alive and unmarried, appeared in person.

9. The prima facie case against the petitioner is that she
4

fraudulently had her name mutated in place of the rightful

owner, Dipti Ganguly, for a property at 10D Garpar Road,

Kolkata. The allegations assert that Minu Das falsely

represented herself as the only daughter of Dipti Ganguly and

Amar Nath Ganguly and submitted forged death certificates for

both individuals. The forgery was uncovered when Dipti

Ganguly, who is alive and unmarried, appeared in person on

December 26, 2011. The mutation was subsequently canceled,

and it was further alleged that the fraudulent act was carried

out with the help of unscrupulous KMC employees.

10. Upon review of the records, I find no irregularity,

inconsistency, or illegality in the police investigation, the

charge sheet, or the cognizance of the offense taken by the

lower court. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner

are proper and lawful.

11. It is a well-established principle that the power under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary one, to be exercised

sparingly and with great caution. Its purpose is to prevent the

abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of

justice. It is not a tool to be used to interfere with a legitimate

criminal investigation or trial. A High Court can invoke this

power to quash proceedings only in rare cases, such as when

the allegations in the FIR or charge sheet, even if taken at face

value, do not constitute an offense. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

grants the High Court inherent powers to pass any orders

necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or

to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power is
5

extraordinary and must be exercised with great caution. It is

not an alternative to regular appeals or revisions, but rather a

tool to prevent a miscarriage of justice when no other remedy

is available. The High Court can use this power to quash a

First Information Report (FIR), a charge sheet, or the entire

criminal proceedings if they are frivolous, malicious, or legally

untenable. The case against the petitioner is prima facie

established.

12. Upon a thorough review of the case record, including the police

investigation and the charge sheet, I find no grounds for

intervention under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The

extraordinary power under Section 482 is not meant to stifle

legitimate criminal proceedings. There is no irregularity,

inconsistency, or illegality in the proceedings that would justify

quashing them. In this instance, the allegations disclose

serious offenses that warrant a full trial, as the proceedings

appear to be proper, lawful, and based on credible allegations.

13. Accordingly, the revisional application filed by the petitioner is

dismissed.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. All interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

16. All pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.

17. An urgent certified copy of this order may be provided to the

parties upon compliance with all necessary legal formalities.

(Uday Kumar, J.)
6