Criminal Law Cannot Be Weaponised To Settle Family Property Disputes; Calcutta High Court Quashes Defamation, Intimidation Case Against Cousin
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court at Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, observing that criminal law cannot be used as a pressure tactic in what is essentially a family property dispute, quashed defamation, insult and intimidation proceedings initiated against a private company executive, holding that the complaint did not disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged. The Court found the allegations vague, devoid of specific dates, times or particular words attributed to the accused, and insufficient to establish any criminal intent, warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the court's process.
The matter arose from an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of proceedings and charge sheet under Sections 500, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hooghly. The petitioner, employed in a private company, was involved in a pending partition suit concerning family property. The complaint was lodged by the daughter of his cousin, alleging constant verbal abuse, psychological trauma, threats, stalking, and defamatory remarks affecting her dignity and reputation. She further alleged that such acts endangered her safety and that of her family during her advanced stage of pregnancy.
The petitioner contended that the complaint was a counterblast to the civil dispute and lacked specific dates, times, or particulars constituting any offence. Reference was made to pending civil proceedings including a partition suit and a money suit for defamation. The State argued that investigation resulted in a charge sheet, statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded, and sufficient materials existed for trial. The dispute centered on whether the allegations and materials collected disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences invoked.
The Court observed that “the factual matrix of the case prima facie discloses, a long-standing rivalry over property dispute between the cousin brother of the de-facto complainant and the present petitioner over which several proceedings are pending before the Civil courts.”
It recorded that “from the four corners of the entire written complaint, no specific date, time or even the nature of the offence can be found to have been ascribed against the petitioner.”
While examining the materials collected during investigation, the Court noted, “the case diary, Prima face discloses about some comments made by the petitioner against the de-facto complainant, but not a single word has been spelt to arrive at any conclusion as to whether those were derogatory defamatory or outrageous or not.” It further recorded that “the statement of the witnesses recorded are the relatives and some local villagers but that too is devoid of any date or months or year or in any specific word, used or allegations levelled against the de-facto complainant by the petitioner.”
Referring to the principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction, the Court stated, “the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceeding in a proper case, either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
Quoting precedent, it recorded, “where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused.”
The Court also stated, “for interference under section 482, three conditions are to be fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of a grave and not of a trivial character. It should be palpable and clear and not doubtful, and there should exist no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief.”
Applying these principles, the Court observed, “this court do not find materials on the face of the complaint in order to constitute an offence under the sections as alleged on the face of the complaint as well as from the evidence collected during investigation.”
The Court directed that “this revisional application stands allowed. The proceeding pending before the Learned Magistrate stands quashed. No order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee, Adv.; Mr. Soumyadeep Nag, Adv.; Mr. Satyam Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Adv.; Mr. Bhaskar Hutait, Adv.; Mr. Dhiman Banerjee, Adv.; Mr. Quasi Ezaz Ahmed, Adv.
Case Title: Avijit Singha Roy vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: CHC-AS:324
Case Number: CRR 1577 of 2023
Bench: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
