Calcutta High Court Declines Relief To Men Accused Of Threatening Santhal Woman, Calling Her "Lower Caste"

The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against two timber merchants accused of trespass, theft of nearly one thousand trees and caste-based abuse of a Santhal woman, holding that the allegations disclose prima facie offences under both the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and must proceed to trial.

Justice Uday Kumar ruled that the sheer scale of the alleged tree-felling operation—carried out over three days with labourers, machinery and transport vehicles—makes the location “a place within public view” for the purposes of the SC/ST Act.

The Court emphasised that such an operation could never be conducted secretly, remarking that “one cannot fell a forest of a thousand trees in secrecy; the sheer scale of the operation invites public attention and renders the site a place within public view.”

The petitioners had sought quashing of the proceedings on multiple grounds, including that the 156(3) application on the basis of which the FIR was registered was defective because it was not supported by an affidavit as mandated by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava. The Court, however, held that while the absence of an affidavit was a procedural lapse, it was a curable irregularity under Section 465 CrPC once a full police investigation had been conducted and a chargesheet filed.

According to the Court, “the deficiency constitutes a curable irregularity and not a jurisdictional fatality… once the police have found prima facie criminality after investigation, the technical filter of the affidavit stands superseded.”

On the question of whether the dispute was essentially civil in nature—as the petitioners claimed, asserting that they had bought the timber from the complainant's nephew—the Court said that the existence of a civil dimension cannot shield conduct that also constitutes cognizable criminal offences.

It reiterated the settled principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings and that only a full trial can determine whether the alleged sale was genuine or a convenient cover. The Court also rejected the argument that delay in filing the complaint undermined its credibility, observing that for members of marginalised communities, delay may stem from fear or systemic barriers and therefore becomes a matter for trial, not a ground for quashing.

The background of the case involves a complaint by Surjamin Soren, a Santhal woman, who alleged that between 9 and 11 October 2020, the petitioners trespassed on her land, felled nearly one thousand trees worth approximately ₹6 lakh and threatened her when she objected, allegedly uttering caste-based slurs such as, “Tui Santhal achis, tui choto jaat… toke amra mere fele debo.” (You are Santhal...you are lower caste...we will kill you).

Although the FIR was registered only after she filed a 156(3) plea before the ACJM, Rampurhat, the police investigation thereafter found sufficient material to chargesheet the petitioners for offences under Sections 447, 379, 506 and 34 of the IPC, along with provisions of the SC/ST Act.

After examining the materials, the High Court held that the allegations, if taken at face value, clearly disclose the ingredients of the offences. It stressed that whether the slurs were uttered, whether neighbours witnessed the incident, and whether the alleged sale of timber was genuine are all issues of evidence that must be tested at trial and cannot be decided in a quashing petition.

Concluding that the case does not fall within any of the categories laid down in Bhajan Lal for quashing, the Court refused to interfere and directed that the criminal proceedings should continue.

Case: IDEL SK @ GABA SK AND ANOTHER -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Case No: CRR 2301 OF 2022

Click here to read order