'Quashing Power Must Be Used Sparingly After Charges Framed': Calcutta High Court Refuses To Halt Trial In Outraging Modesty Case
Srinjoy Das
12 Feb 2026 3:15 PM IST
The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of stalking, assault, attempting to outrage a woman's modesty and criminal intimidation, observing that once charges have been framed and trial has progressed, the High Court must exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC with extreme caution and only in the “rarest of rare cases.” The Court held that disputed facts and sufficiency of evidence cannot be examined in a quashing petition.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) dismissed a revision petition filed by Uttam Mondal seeking quashing of Sessions Case No. 16(3) of 2023 arising out of Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 339 of 2022 under Sections 341, 325, 354D, 308, 506 and 509 IPC, which is pending before the 17th Additional District Judge, Alipore.
According to the complaint lodged by the woman (Opposite Party No. 2), the incident occurred on May 17, 2022, when the petitioner allegedly wrongfully restrained her near her residence, abused her in filthy language, assaulted her with fists and blows, pushed her against a wall, and attempted to outrage her modesty. It was further alleged that he tried to snatch her gold chain during the scuffle and had been harassing and stalking her for years after she rejected his advances. Police investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet against him.
The petitioner argued before the High Court that he had been falsely implicated and that the case was a counterblast to a complaint he had earlier lodged against the woman and her family. He contended that key witnesses were not examined, the doctor was not cited, medical documents were missing, and there were inconsistencies in the woman's statement under Section 161 CrPC. He further claimed that the parties were previously known to each other and had a past relationship, which was suppressed in the complaint.
Opposing the plea, the State and the complainant submitted that charges had already been framed in June 2025, the victim had been examined as PW-1, and the trial had substantially progressed. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had earlier sought discharge before the trial court, which was rejected, and yet he had not challenged that order in the present revision.
The High Court noted that the revisional application was filed after commencement of trial and after rejection of the discharge plea. The Court observed that the scope of quashing proceedings after filing of charge-sheet and framing of charges is significantly narrower, and courts must refrain from analysing the probative value of evidence at this stage.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents including State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked to “choke or smother a legitimate prosecution.” It emphasised that the High Court cannot assess whether conviction would ultimately be sustainable or weigh the defence version while deciding a quashing plea.
Upon perusal of the case diary and materials collected during investigation, the Court found that prima facie allegations of serious offences existed against the petitioner and that the trial court had applied its mind while framing charges and refusing discharge. The mere fact that the petitioner had filed a prior complaint against the woman, the Court held, does not automatically render her case vexatious or an abuse of process.
Holding that disputed questions of fact must be tested during trial and not in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the revision petition without costs.
Case Title: Uttam Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 4805 of 2023