Deekshitha Sharmile

The Calcutta High Court, Single Bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a professor at the University of Calcutta who was accused of forgery and misappropriation of funds connected to a government-sponsored research project. The Court found that the investigative materials collected by the agency gave rise to mere suspicion, falling short of the grave suspicion required to proceed to trial. Notably, handwriting expert reports failed to establish authorship of the disputed signatures, while prosecution witnesses themselves stated that cash withdrawn from bank accounts was handed over to a third party.

The proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by the Head of the Department of Jute and Fibre Technology, University of Calcutta, alleging forgery in connection with a government-sponsored research project on jute and fibre technology. The complaint stated that forged vouchers and cheques were used to withdraw money through impersonation, raising concerns of fraudulent transactions.

Also Read: Express Contractual Bar Prevents Arbitral Tribunal From Granting Pre-Award And Pendente Lite Interest In Any Form, Including As Compensation: Supreme Court

The Investigating Agency submitted a charge-sheet in April 2023 and a supplementary charge-sheet in December 2025, relying on witness statements and seized documents. These included vouchers, cheques, and account statements linked to withdrawals made in the name of a departmental staff member. Handwriting expert reports were obtained on multiple occasions, with varying conclusions regarding authorship of disputed signatures. Witnesses, including employees of the department and the bank, stated that funds were withdrawn and handed over to a superior.

The case involved allegations of forgery, cheating, and unauthorized withdrawals, with the investigation focusing on whether signatures on vouchers and cheques were genuine or fabricated. The statutory framework considered was based on criminal law principles governing forgery, cheating, and misuse of departmental funds.

Justice Tirthankar Ghosh recorded that “the Court while appreciating an application for quashing of the proceeding wherein charge-sheet has been submitted would also weigh whether the materials collected by the Investigating Agency give rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion.”

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, stating that “If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.”

It was further recorded that “the words ‘not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused’ clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution.”

The Court noted that “in this case the handwriting expert’s opinion and the statements of the witnesses being C.S.W.7, C.S.W.8 and C.S.W.10 do not inspire confidence. As the prosecution witnesses themselves have stated that they have handed over the money to Debashis Shome.”

Justice Ghosh also referred to Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, observing that “criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Court has to scrutinise the evidence brought on record and thereafter progress with the proceedings, needless to state that a criminal case has serious ramification on an individual who is asked to face an investigation or trial.”

The Court cited Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, recording that “where there is some suspicion and not grave suspicion, it would be in the interest of justice not to proceed with the criminal case.”

Finally, the Court referred to Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal, noting that “the tendency of filing chargesheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system. It forces Judges, court staff, and prosecutors to spend time on trials that are likely to result in an acquittal.”

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Bail In POCSO Case ; Bail In Serious POCSO Cases Cannot Be Granted As A Matter Of Course Solely On Chargesheet Filing

Justice Tirthankar Ghosh directed: “Thus, I am of the opinion that further continuance of proceedings relating to Ballygunge Police Station Case No. 145/18 dated 03.11.2018 would result in abuse of the process of law. Consequently, all further proceedings of Ballygunge Police Station Case No. 145/18 dated 03.11.2018 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, CRR 497 of 2021 is allowed. Pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of. Case Diary be returned to the learned Advocate appearing for the State.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Debasish Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Shraman Sarkar, Adv., Md. Tehasin Reja, Adv.
For the Opposite Party: Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Satyaki Banerjee, Adv.
For the State: Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP, Mr. Bitasok Banerjee, Adv.

Case Title: Swapan Kumar Ghosh vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: C.R.R. 497 of 2021
Bench: Justice Tirthankar Ghosh