The Calcutta High Court has quashed a criminal proceeding against a doctor after noting that the complainant had alleged that he threatened her uncle in 2018, despite the fact that the doctor had died nearly eight years earlier.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed that attributing a threat in 2018 to a person who died in 2010 was “not merely improbable but impossible on its face”, and held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Dr. Gour Das seeking quashing of a complaint alleging offences under Sections 420, 465, 471, 120B, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

The complaint concerned a registered Deed of Trust executed in 2010 in respect of property at Ballygunge, Kolkata. The complainant, the niece of the original owner, alleged that the trust deed had been procured by fraud and manipulation to grab the property.

The Court noted that the trust deed was executed and registered on August 18, 2010, whereas the criminal complaint was filed only in 2018, after a delay of nearly eight years without any explanation.

More significantly, the complaint alleged that the accused persons threatened the complainant's uncle on May 7, 2018 with dire consequences if he took legal steps to revoke the trust deed. However, one of the accused, Dr. Tapash Kumar Banerjee, had died on September 22, 2010.

“The allegation of threat attributed to the accused no. 1, who had admittedly died nearly eight years before the date of the alleged occurrence, even if taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the commission of any offence by him,” the Court observed.

The Court also took note of the fact that the complainant did not disclose the death of the accused even while making her statement under Section 200 CrPC before the Magistrate.

The Court further found that the Magistrate had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 202 CrPC before issuing summons to the petitioner, who resided beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

Another significant factor was that a civil suit concerning the same dispute was already pending before the Alipore Civil Court.

The High Court held that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that criminal law had been invoked as a parallel means to pressure the petitioner.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the case fell within Categories (1), (5), (6) and (7) of the illustrative circumstances warranting exercise of the High Court's inherent powers.

The Court concluded that the criminal proceeding was “a civil dispute clothed in the garb of criminality” and that its continuation would constitute a gross abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the criminal complaint insofar as the petitioner was concerned.

Case Details: Dr. Gour Das v. Bhabani Bhattacharjee

Case No: CRR No. 3700 of 2018

Click here to read order