Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: February 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 29 to 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 119'Second Complaint On Same Matrimonial Incident Unsustainable, Abuse Of Process': Calcutta High Court Quashes S.498A IPC CaseCase Title: Asish Bera & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 29Observing that a second criminal proceeding on the “self-same incident” with identical allegations cannot be sustained and would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Calcutta High Court has quashed a dowry harassment and attempt to murder case instituted against a husband and his family members.Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that once an earlier FIR had already been registered regarding the same occurrence, the de-facto complainant could not initiate another complaint before a different forum under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court found material inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, omnibus and general allegations against the in-laws, and the absence of specific overt acts, concluding that continuation of the proceedings would be unjust.Decline In Enrolment Of Nearby Girls' School No Ground To Ban Admission Of Girls In Co-Educational Institution: Calcutta High CourtCase: Swapan Kumar Manna & Ors. Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 30The Calcutta High Court has held that the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) cannot withdraw co-education facilities from a school merely to protect the enrolment of a nearby girls' school. The Court quashed the Board's orders, which restricted admission of girl students in Classes V to VIII at Sonamui Co-Education School. Justice Krishna Rao noted that Sonamui Co-Education School has been a recognised co-educational institution since 6 January 1965 and that no violation of statutory or regulatory conditions by the school was established by the Board.No Absolute Right To Protest At Any Chosen Place: Calcutta High Court Refuses Permission For Dharna In Front Of State Secretariat 'Nabanna'Case: Sankar Ghosh v The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 31The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by an MLA challenging the refusal of police permission to hold a sit-in demonstration in front of Nabanna, the headquarters of the West Bengal Government.The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen upheld the order of the Single Judge permitting the protest to be held at an alternative location, holding that the right to protest is subject to reasonable restrictions regarding time and place.Calcutta High Court Quashes 'Counterblast' FIR In Neighbourhood Dispute, Says S.354B IPC Not Applicable Against Women AccusedCase: RIYA RAY@ ROY & ANR. VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 32Holding that criminal law cannot be weaponised to settle personal scores in a residential dispute, the Calcutta High Court has quashed an FIR lodged by a woman against her neighbours — a mother and daughter — observing that the case appeared to be a “counterblast” to an earlier complaint and was riddled with delay, inconsistencies, and legal infirmities. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das found that the allegations stemmed from a trivial disagreement over locking the main gate of a residential building but had been exaggerated into serious charges, including attempt to murder, outraging modesty, and robbery. The Court held that continuation of such proceedings would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law.'Witnesses To Raid Denied Presence, Seizure Highly Doubtful': Calcutta High Court Acquits Man In 36-Yr-Old Arms Act CaseCase Title: Jogesh Barman @ Doro Barman v. The State of West Bengal Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 33The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a man under the Arms Act in a 36-year-old case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove lawful recovery of arms after every independent seizure witness disowned the alleged raid, rendering the alleged recovery “highly doubtful” and the conviction legally unsustainable.Justice Prasenjit Biswas, allowing the appeal filed by Jogesh Barman @ Doro Barman, ruled that a conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated police testimony when all independent witnesses deny participation in the search and seizure. The Court underscored that proof of conscious and lawful recovery is the sine qua non for sustaining offences under the Arms Act, and once seizure witnesses themselves deny witnessing the recovery or preparation of the seizure list, the very foundation of the prosecution collapses.Termination Order Of Probationer On Allegations Of Misconduct Is Punitive, Cannot Be Passed Without Enquiry: Calcutta High CourtCase: The Board of Governors, Ghani Khan Choudhury Institute of Engineering & Technology & Ors. Versus Deb Halder & Ors Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 34A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, has dismissed an...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: February 2026

Srinjoy Das

Tags