CRR/425/2023 of R V GHOSH @ RAJYAVARDHAN GHOSH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

19.01.2026 Court No.34 Item.45 sg CRR 425 of 2023 In the matter of: R.V. Ghosh @ Rajyavardhan Ghosh & Anr. …Petitioners. Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury Mr. Debapratim Guha Ms. Anchita Sarkar …for the petitioners. Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld.P.P. Mr. Koushik Kundu …for the State. 1. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 I n the order dated December 19, 2025 also no one appears d espite appropriate service. 2. Hence the matter is taken up in absence of the oppos ite party no.2. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr iminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed by the present petitioners fo r quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 2778 of 2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magister, 2 nd Court, Barasat arising out of Rajarhathat Police Station case no. 221 of 2022 dated June 20, 2022 under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 4. The fact of the case in a nut shell is that in the yea r 1920-21 petitioner had purchased flat by way of deed of sal e from a company named and style as Magnolia Infrastructure Development Limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is the case of the petitioners that from the very inception after flats were handed over to the residen ts of Magnolia Grand and Magnolia Grand-II; they found lot of deficiencies of service and amenities as promised. After the flats were handed over in an incomplete state, the resi dents /petitioners were even forced to get electric connecti on through the construction meter by the opposite party n o.2 and since then they communicated with opposite party n o.2 for installation and energization of transformer law fully for which the company already collected Rs. 40/- per square foot from each resident for providing electric connection from the West Bengal State Electric Distribution Company Lim ited (WBSEDCL). The Petitioners were forced to live an in secured life without having essential amenities like electricity. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that number of meetings were held between the petitioners and other flat own ers of the said apartment represented by opposite party no. 2 on behalf of the company residents including the petit ioners in presence of the person representing the opposite part y no.2 but yielded with no result. After that present petitio ners and 3 other residents also ventilated their grievances by exchange of e-mails to the opposite party no.2 of such illeg al trade practices and false assurance. 6. During the end of the year, 2021 opposite party no.2 formed an association under the West Bengal Apartment Owners hip Act, 1972 illegally and the registration of the same w as cancelled by the competent authority on the basis of the complaint lodged by the present petitioners. 7. In order to throttle the protest of the flat owners the opposite party no.2 thereafter filed an application under Section 156 ( 3 ) of the code of Criminal Procedure Code before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Barasat which was allowed and the case was started by the opposite party no.2. 8. On completion of investigation the charge sheet was also filed being charge sheet no. 214 dated 18 th July, 2022 under Sections 314/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code aga inst the present petitioner. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, present petitioners have come up before this Court for quashing of such proceedin g pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate against an or der dated September 23, 2022 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barasat took cognizance of the said offence. 4 10. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petition er submits that the entire allegation leveled against th e present petitioners are false and concocted as they are very respected residents of the said gated community. Des pite assurance given on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 the amenities were not provided and because of lack of amenities as assured, the petitioners are being harassed and had to live a very in secured life. 11. There is no iota of materials to attract allegations le veled against the present petitioners. Accordingly prayed to quash the charge-sheet as well as the proceeding pending before the learned Magistrate. 12. The Learned advocate relied upon decision of much celebrated judgement of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 where the parameters are given to be followed by exercising power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of t he proceeding. 13. Learned advocate has further relied upon the deci sion reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 2030 N.S. Madhangopal and Another Vs. K. Lalitha in order to establish that none of the required parameters to attract Section 341 of IPC has been mentioned in the complaint lodged under Section 156 of Clause 3 Cr.P.C . The Learned advocate has further re lied 5 upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court r eported in 2025 (Supreme)(Cal) 109 Sri Protip Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Another . 14. It is submitted that the allegations contained in th e written complaint do not constitute the offence which are i nherently improbable and pursuant to the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors. (Supra) lastly the learned advocate relied upon the decision reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 946 Haji Iquabal alias Bala Vs. State of U.P and Others. 15. Learned prosecution, on the other hand, hand over t he Case Diary and candidly submits dispute pertains to cance llation of registration certificate on the basis of the complai nt lodged by the present petitioners. It is further argued tha t no material can be found also to attract either of the ch arges leveled against the present petitioners. 16. Heard the submissions. 17. In the decision of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors. (supra) the parameters have been narrated down when the extra ordinary power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 espoused as follows : “ 102. This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of CRPC under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordina ry power 6 under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian or the inherent powers under Section 482 CRPC gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, th is Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay dow n any precise, clearly defined and that it may not be possible to law down any precise, clearly defined and that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined a nd sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kin ds of cases wherein such power should be exercised : (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a cas e against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information rep ort and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1 ) of the except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 7 (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the GIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support o f the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complain t are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in an y of the provisions of the Code of the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the co de or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for 8 wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 18. It is seen from the complaint lodged under Sectio n 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, the date of incident is mentioned as of Ma y 15, 2022. The allegation was leveled against present peti tions of using filthy language towards the complainant includi ng physically assault and torture on the complainant. No medical paper was submitted in support of such contention. 19. In terms of the decision as relied upon in N.S. Madhangopal and Another Vs. K. Lalitha (supra) in paragraph 10 onwards it is disclosed that Section 341 of the IPC tal ks about punishment for wrongful restraint. Section 34 1 reads thus : “341. Punishment for wrongful restraint-whoever wro ngfully restrains any person shall be punished with the simpl e imprisonment for a terms which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extent to five hundred rupees o r with both.” In paragraph 11 the complaint also fails to disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of w rongful restraint. In order to attract application of Secti on 341 it has to be proved that (i) there was obstruction by the acc used; (ii) such obstruction prevented a person from proce eding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed; (iii) the accused 9 caused such obstructions voluntarily. The obstructer must intend or know or would have reason to believe that th e means adopted would cause obstruction to the complainant. 20. In the instant case on close scrutiny of the nature o f the accusation leveled nothing can be found which permi tted this Court to be satisfied that there was such ingredien t in order to attract said provision. In the decision of Haji Iquabal alias Bala Vs. State of U.P and Others (supra) it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the accused before the Court invoking either inherent pow er under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C or extraordinary juri sdiction under extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or criminal proceeding quashed essentially on the ground of such proceeding are ma nifestly perverse vexatious, with an ulterior motive with wrea king vengeance, in such circumstances Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and little closely. That apa rt, it was further observed that the Court need not restrict only to the stage of the case but to take into account the overal l circumstances leading to initiation or registration o f the FIR as well as the materials collected in course of investigation. 21. In the instant case on close scrutiny of the Case Dai ry and other materials prima facie nothing can be found to establish the contention of the de-facto complainant and even if they 10 are taken face value and accepted do not primary con stitute offence to make out the case against the accused pers on. That apart on perusal of the order of the learned Ma gistrate dated 23rd September, 2022 taking cognizance when charge sheet submitted it transpire no reason was assigned for taking cognizance of the same. 22. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down in this regard this Court is of the clear view that there is no case made out for the present petitio ners for which present proceeding should allowed to be continu ed otherwise it would be gross abuse of process of law. 23. Hence this criminal revisional application stands allowed. 24. The proceeding pending before the learned Court is h ereby quashed. 25. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]