The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a serving Territorial Army personnel, holding that compelling him to undergo the “ignominy and trauma” of a criminal trial on the basis of a demonstrably false and vindictive police report would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.

Justice Uday Kumar made the observation while dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by two brothers, Arun Prasad and Arjun Prasad, seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of an Uttarpara Police Station case alleging offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court found that official records from the Indian Army conclusively established that Arun Prasad was on active military duty in Imphal, Manipur, at the exact time when he was alleged to have assaulted the complainant in Hooghly.

The Court, however, declined to quash the proceedings against his brother Arjun Prasad, holding that the case diary contained eyewitness statements and injury reports which disclosed a prima facie case and that the disputed questions concerning his alleged participation had to be decided at trial.

The criminal case arose against the backdrop of a neighbourhood property dispute concerning a four-foot common passage and drainage easement at Saradapally, Sector-II, Makhla, Hooghly.

The petitioners' family had already instituted a civil suit in relation to the disputed passage. There were also police diary entries and preventive proceedings amid the escalating friction between the neighbouring families.

The complainant subsequently approached the police under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to registration of the FIR.

It was alleged that on October 5, 2023, at around 6:30 AM, Arun and Arjun Prasad, along with unknown associates, intercepted the complainant near Satadol Club, assaulted him, demanded that his sister vacate her property, took away ₹7,500 and threatened him.

During investigation, however, the police verified the whereabouts of Arun Prasad.

The Commanding Officer of B-Company, 25 BRTE, Imphal, Manipur, certified that Arun was on active military duty in Imphal on the date and at the time of the alleged occurrence.

The investigating officer consequently submitted a Final Report in respect of Arun and dropped him from the chargesheet. The chargesheet proceeded only against Arjun.

The High Court noted that Arun's alibi was not merely a defence raised by him but was supported by an official military record verified by the Commanding Officer.

Justice Kumar observed that the records established his presence on active duty in Imphal and that it was “physically impossible for an individual to inhabit two geographical coordinates thousands of miles apart simultaneously.”

The Court distinguished such an officially authenticated alibi from an ordinary plea of alibi which may require evidence at trial.

It held that where the investigating agency itself verifies and accepts the accused's physical absence from the scene and submits a Final Report, continuing the prosecution against such a person would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The Court observed: “To compel a soldier of the nation to endure the ignominy and trauma of a criminal trial based on a demonstrably false and vindictive police report is an unconscionable abuse of the judicial process.”

The Court held that the proceedings against Arun fell within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*, particularly the categories concerning proceedings manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted with an ulterior motive.

The Court, however, refused to extend the same relief to Arjun Prasad.

Unlike Arun, Arjun was a local resident and his presence at the relevant place was not disputed. The case diary contained statements of eyewitnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, along with injury reports which, according to the Court, prima facie disclosed wrongful restraint and simple hurt.

The Court acknowledged that the criminal case had emerged against the backdrop of the pending civil dispute over the common passage.

However, it reiterated that the existence of a civil dispute does not, by itself, bar criminal prosecution where the investigative material discloses independent ingredients of criminal offences.

Relying upon Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, the Court observed that the truth or falsity of the eyewitness accounts, the precise nature of the altercation and the competing allegations involved disputed questions of fact which could not be conclusively examined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court accordingly held that the prosecution against Arjun disclosed a prima facie case warranting trial.

The Court consequently partly allowed the revision petition.

It quashed the proceedings arising out of Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 445 of 2023 and the consequential chargesheet insofar as Arun Prasad was concerned, taking formal note of the fact that the investigating agency had already dropped him following submission of the Final Report.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings against Arjun was rejected and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

The Court clarified that its observations regarding Arjun were confined to deciding the revisional application and should not influence the Trial Court's determination of the case on merits.

Case Title: Arun Prasad & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No.: CRR 2356 of 2024

Click here to read order