Father Allegedly Throwing Tennis Ball At Child During Visitation, Attempting To Take Him Away Not 'Assault': Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a father accused of assaulting his minor son during a court-ordered visitation, holding that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and were inherently improbable.

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute where the petitioner had been granted visitation rights to meet his six-year-old son at the court premises.

According to the complaint, during the meeting the child expressed sleepiness, following which the father allegedly became annoyed, dragged the child towards the exit and threw a tennis ball that struck him, while also abusing and pushing the complainant. Based on this, a case was registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, and intentional insult.

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, however, found material contradictions between the FIR, the application filed before the District Judge seeking suspension of visitation, witness statements, and the medical record.

The Court noted that the prosecution case rested solely on statements of “interested witnesses,” namely the complainant's father—who was not present at the scene—and her advocate, with no independent witnesses examined despite the incident allegedly occurring in a crowded court premises. The Bench also found the delay of three days in lodging the FIR unexplained, raising doubts about embellishment.

On merits, the Court held that the essential element of mens rea was absent, observing that there was no material to suggest any deliberate intention on the part of the petitioner to cause harm to his own child.

At best,the bench noted that the allegations indicated a momentary reaction during an emotionally charged visitation, which could not be equated with criminal intent required for the offences alleged.

Terming the prosecution story as “wholly unnatural and against human conduct,” the Court held that it fell within the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing of proceedings.

Concluding that continuation of the case would amount to abuse of process, the Court allowed the revision and set aside the criminal proceedings pending before the Magistrate.

Case Title: Subhadeep Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No: CRR 4122 of 2025

Click here to read order