Calcutta High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Calcutta University Professor, Says Mere Suspicion Cannot Lead To Trial
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a University of Calcutta professor accused of forgery and misappropriation of research project funds, holding that the materials collected during investigation raised only “suspicion” and not the “grave suspicion” necessary to put an accused to trial.
Allowing a criminal revision, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh ruled that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process, particularly when handwriting expert reports did not fix authorship of the disputed signatures and witnesses themselves attributed the cash withdrawals to another person.
The petitioner, a senior academic associated with the Department of Jute and Fibre Technology, was implicated following a complaint lodged by the Head of Department alleging that forged signatures were used on vouchers and bearer cheques relating to a Ministry of Textiles-funded R&D project. It was alleged that money had been fraudulently withdrawn by impersonation.
After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet and later a supplementary charge-sheet, relying on seized vouchers, bank records and multiple cheques drawn in the name of one Debashis Shome. The prosecution also obtained three separate handwriting expert opinions and cited several bank and departmental staff as witnesses.
However, the Court noted that the handwriting expert, in multiple reports, repeatedly stated that it was “not possible to fix up authorship” of the disputed writings from the specimen signatures of the petitioner. In fact, in some instances, the expert opined that certain disputed writings matched the signatures of Debashis Shome and not the petitioner.
Further, key prosecution witnesses stated in their statements that they had encashed the cheques on the instructions of Debashis Shome and handed over the money to him. A bank employee's version also supported this narrative. The Court found that these materials weakened the prosecution's theory linking the petitioner to the alleged withdrawals.
Relying on settled principles governing discharge and quashing at the pre-trial stage, the Court emphasised that criminal courts must distinguish between mere suspicion and grave suspicion. Citing P Vijayan v. State of Kerala, M E Shivalingamurthy v. CBI, and Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal, the judge reiterated that cases lacking strong material should not be sent to trial as a matter of routine.
Quoting precedent, the Court observed that a judge “is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution” and must ensure that only cases with a reasonable prospect of conviction proceed.
Holding that the evidence in the present case was self-contradictory and did not inspire confidence, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would unjustifiably subject the petitioner to the rigours of a criminal trial.
Accordingly, all further proceedings in Ballygunge Police Station Case No. 145/18 were quashed and the revision petition was allowed.
Case: Swapan Kumar Ghosh -vs- The State of West Bengal & Anr
Case No: C.R.R. 497 of 2021