The Calcutta High Court has allowed a criminal revision and quashed the entire proceedings arising out of Burdwan P.S. Case No. 237/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Burdwan (East), observing that the allegations made in the FIR even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and that continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the court. The case stemmed from a bitter matrimonial discord between the parties wherein the petitioner father had been granted limited visitation rights to meet his six year old minor son at the court premises pursuant to an order passed under the Guardians and Wards Act. On the scheduled date of visitation on 01.03.2025 while the interaction was taking place in the court veranda the child reportedly expressed sleepiness upon which the father allegedly became furious dragged the child down the staircase attempted to take him outside the court premises towards the Town School gate and threw a tennis ball which struck the child in the lower abdomen. The mother alleged that when she tried to intervene she was abused and pushed causing her to fall. A complaint was lodged on 04.03.2025 after a delay of three days and the police submitted a charge sheet relying primarily on statements of the complainant’s father and her advocate.
The Court meticulously examined the glaring contradictions between the contents of the FIR the application filed by the mother before the District Judge two days after the incident seeking suspension of visitation rights the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the medical history noted in the injury report from Burdwan Medical College and Hospital. It was observed that the prosecution case rests entirely on two interested witnesses namely the maternal grandfather who was not even present at the spot and the mother’s advocate who had actively participated in filing the application for suspension of visitation rights just a day prior to lodging of the FIR. No independent witness was examined despite the alleged incident occurring in a busy court premises on a working day. The Court noted that the investigating officer had even requested the complainant to furnish additional witnesses but she categorically stated that she had no further witnesses to produce which itself casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The medical certificate described the injury as simple and the history recorded therein was based solely on the mother’s statement without any independent corroboration. Such material inconsistencies and lack of independent evidence rendered the prosecution story highly doubtful and unreliable.
The High Court further held that the essential ingredient of mens rea is conspicuously absent in the present case. There is no material whatsoever to suggest any deliberate criminal intention on the part of the father to cause hurt or wrongful restraint to his own minor child for whom he had eagerly approached the court seeking visitation rights. The entire episode at best appears to be a momentary emotional reaction during a highly charged visitation interaction between father and son which by no stretch of imagination can be elevated to the level of criminal offences requiring specific intent. The allegations of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace under Section 352 BNS were found to be completely lacking in any supporting material. The Court emphasised that in matrimonial disputes of this nature there is a growing tendency to rope in the other party with exaggerated or false allegations to gain advantage in parallel civil proceedings and such misuse of criminal machinery must be discouraged.
Relying upon the celebrated guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal the High Court held that the present case squarely falls within the categories where the FIR and the materials collected do not prima facie constitute any cognizable offence the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable and the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and ulterior motive to wreck vengeance and spite the father due to personal grudge in the matrimonial battle. The unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR further strengthened the inference that time was taken to deliberate and embellish the story. The Court also referred to the judgment in Hazi Iqbal Md. versus State of UP wherein the Apex Court cautioned against frivolous and vexatious complaints instituted with ulterior motives that cause severe prejudice and scar the reputation of the accused.
After detailed consideration of all facts circumstances arguments advanced by the parties and the relevant legal principles the High Court came to the considered conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue and that further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be a clear abuse of the process of law. Consequently the criminal revision was allowed and the entire proceedings arising out of Burdwan P.S. Case No. 237/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 5th Court Burdwan (East) were quashed. The judgment underscores the need for cautious scrutiny in cases involving allegations made in the backdrop of matrimonial disputes especially where court ordered visitation rights are involved and protects the legitimate parental bond from being unduly criminalised on flimsy and improbable grounds.
Case Title: Subhadeep Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:660
Coram: Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 