1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE

CRR 65 of 2025

With

IA No. CRAN 4 of 2025

CRAN 5 of 2025

CRAN 6 of 2025

Kundan Kumar Singh & Anr.

Vs.

Parag Mukhopadhyay

For the Petitioners : Ms. Antalina Guha

Ms. Shinjita Ray

Ms. Sweta Barman

For the Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Anand Keshari

Ms. Pubali Debnath

Ms. Sneha Bhattacharya

Ms. Dhriti Chanda

Heard on : 19.05.2026

Judgment on : 17.06.2026

Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of the proceeding

being no. AC 3456/2024 corresponding to ACGR 3852 of 2022, lodged

under sections 120B/420/409/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 9

th Court, Alipore.

2

2. The dispute pertains to one car parking space situated at Pritha

Apartment, Kolkata 700075. Said property was taken into symbolic

possession by the State Bank of India under The Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 (in short SARFAESI Act) on 07.11.2013. Subsequently an E-auction

notice dated 29.10.2021 was issued by the Bank stipulating that the sale

would be on “as is where is basis” and “whatever there is basis” and that the

possession of the Bank is symbolic in nature and that the intending

purchasers are required to inspect and verify the assets before participating

in the auction.

3. Case of the petitioner is that the opposite party no. 1

herein/complainant voluntarily participated in the auction on 30.12.2021

and was declared the highest bidder. Petitioner’s further case is that the

Bank repeatedly requested the opposite party no. 1 to collect the sale

certificate and to take possession of the property. Despite the same, the

opposite party no.1 lodged the instant complaint against the petitioners who

are Bank official, resulting the aforesaid criminal proceeding.

4. During investigation the investigating officer repeatedly submitted

progress report before the learned magistrate recording that the bank had

taken steps for physical possession and the authorization for such

possession has been obtained and that the opposite party no. 1 already

occupying the parking space partially. However physical possession of the

entire car parking space had been taken by the Bank on 20.07.2023 and the

opposite party no. 1 was requested to take physical possession of purchased

entire car parking space.

3

5. In the above background the investigating agency submitted the final

report on 06.10.2023 with a prayer to close the investigation as the dispute

is civil in nature.

6. In the meantime one Writ petition was also filed by one Mrs. Chobi

Kar Roy on 07.12.2023, claiming relief against the Bank for having taken

forcible possession of car parking space belonging to her, in which the

opposite party no. 1 and the petitioner were implicated as party respondent

being WPA no. 22120 of 2023. Said Writ application was finally disposed of

with an observation that the parties should file suit for redressal of their

grievances. Thereafter on 23.02.2024 the opposite party no. 1 filed an

application under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C seeking further investigation. On

20.11.2024, the application of the opposite party under section 173(8) of the

Cr.P.C was taken up for hearing and the learned Magistrate was pleased to

take cognizance and transfer the case to learned judicial Magistrate, 9

th

court Alipore for disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

contended that in an execution case filed by opposite party no. 1 before the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, an order dated 10.06.2024 was

passed directing the opposite party no.1 to take delivery of the sale

certificate and possession from the Bank authorities. Ignoring aforesaid

background of the case, on 05.12.2024 the opposite party no. 1 was

examined by the court below under section 200 of the Cr.P.C, and process

has been issued under section 204 Cr.P.C against the petitioners for alleged

commission of offence under the abovementioned sections.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding learned counsel for the

petitioner argued that the order issuing process passed by the court below is

4

a cryptic one. Furthermore the opposite party no.1 in his initial deposition

did not disclose the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the Consumer

Dispute Redressal Commission, whereby the said forum directed the

opposite party no. 1 to take sale certificate and also to take possession of

the car parking space from the authorised officer of the Bank. Suppressing

the aforesaid material order, the opposite party no. 1 proceeded with the

complaint case and the learned Magistrate mechanically issued process

against the petitioners by the impugned order dated 05.12.2024.

8. He further submits that the dispute between the parties are

overwhelmingly civil and commercial in nature. No ingredient of the alleged

offences are disclosed and the criminal proceeding has been initiated to

pressurise the bank officials who are acting in discharge of their official

duties. Therefore he prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated

05.12.2024, by which the court below had issued process, along with a

prayer for quashing the entire proceeding.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/

complainant vehemently opposed such prayer. His contention is that the

complainant is the bona fide purchaser who had participated in the e-

auction of the car parking place measuring 148 Sq.ft. and had paid the

entire consideration amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- as per the terms of the e-

auction notice. Even after making such payment, the accused person had

intentionally and deliberately failed and neglected to hand over the

documents pertaining to the said property of the complainant herein.

Though the bank had asked the complainant to collect the sale certificate

from the bank but the opposite party no. 1 came to learn that the said car

5

parking space belongs to Mrs. Chobi Kar Ray. Finding herself deceived and

cheated, the complainant was left with no other alternative than to approach

the police for redressal of her grievances, which has given rise to the instant

preceding. Therefore though the Bank had repeatedly requested the

complaint to collect the sale certificate but the Bank intentionally supressed

that while sale certificate was offered to the complainant, the physical

possession of the said property is in dispute because one Mrs. Chobi Kar

Ray is already enjoying the peaceful possession of the said car parking

space.

10. He further submits that even if the bank had taken physical

possession of the said car parking space on 20.07.2023 but such claim of

Bank cannot be considered, as the same was done after the initiation of the

present preceding. Any subsequent action cannot absolve the criminal

liability of the accused person as the accused person on the date of lodging

FIR had already committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and

cheating.

11. He further stated that the investigating officer in his report has

acknowledged the fact that the complainant was in physical possession of

70 sq.ft., inspite of making the entire payment for 140 sq.ft. The

investigating officer also found that the same car parking space was being

claimed by Mrs. Chobi Kar Ray. The petitioner though relied upon the

observation made in WPA no. 22120 of 2023, that the dispute is purely civil

in nature but it cannot be accepted at this stage, since a mandamus appeal

being MAT no. 210 of 2024 has been filed by said Mrs. Chobikar Ray,

6

challenging the said order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Single

Judge and which is still pending for adjudication.

12. The petitioner also alleged that opposite party no. 1 has suppressed

the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by Consumer Dispute Redressal

Commission, but it does not hold good in view of the fact the order was

passed only after the present preceding was initiated in 2022. Moreover it is

well within his right to approach the Consumer Forum and also the criminal

court for appropriate remedies in accordance with law. A criminal

proceeding cannot be quashed only on the ground that a parallel civil/quasi

civil litigation is pending by and between the parties. The fact that bank has

not even enquired about the fact that the property was already encumbered

is germane and that it was well within their knowledge that the property

could not have been sold and such fact shows that the accused person had

the requisite mens rea for the commission of the alleged offence. He further

argued that though the petitioners have claimed that they are protected by

section 32 of The SARFAESI Act but from the said provision, it is clear that

the protection is available to the Reserve Bank of India or the Central

registry or any secured creditor or any of its officer. Since the petitioners do

not fall under any of the above-mentioned categories, the petitioner cannot

seek protection under that section. On perusal of petition of complaint along

with the initial deposition of complainant, recorded by the learned

Magistrate, it is clear that the accused person had the knowledge, that the

property in question never belonged to the said Bank and from the very

inception the accused persons knew that they would not be in a position to

sell the said property. Therefore the instant application does not deserve any

7

merit and should be dismissed with cost and with a direction to conclude

the trial at the earliest.

Decision

13. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra ,

reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court

laid down the principle that the jurisdiction under section 482 is very wide

but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. However at

the same time, a court if he thinks fit regard being had to be parameters of

quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law more particularly, the

parameters laid down in RP Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab , AIR 1960 SCC

866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1922 (sup) 1 SCC 335, has the

jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. It was further held that when High

Court exercises the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., it only has to

consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR discloses the commission

of a cognizable offence but is not required to consider on merits whether the

allegations make out a cognizable offence, or not and the court has to permit

the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.

14. Now I will have to carefully scan the complaint in respect of which

court below has taken cognizance upon offences after examining the

complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and on prima facie satisfaction

issued process against the petitioners under section 120

B/420/409/467/468/471 of the IPC vide order dated 5

th December, 2024,

in order to ascertain whether the petitioners are justified in taking up the

contention that the allegations raised thereunder did not contain the

8

ingredients to constitute the alleged offences or whether the respondent had

made out a prima facie case for trial. In that regard it is worthwhile to take

note of the fact that the complainant/opposite party herein has alleged

commission of offences under section 120 B/420/409/467/468/471 of the

IPC against the petitioners I will first refer to the ingredients to constitute

such offences to consider the said question

14.1 To constitute offence under section 420 of IPC, the accused must

have deceived someone and that by such deception the accused

must induce a person (a) to deliver any property or

(b) to make alter destroy a whole or part of the valuable security or

anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being

converted into a valuable property

(c) the accused must have done so dishonestly.

14.2 In order to constitute offence under section 409 IPC the essential

ingredients are as follows:-

(i) The accused was a public servant or a banker or merchant

or agent or factor or broker or an attorney

(ii) In such capacity accused was entrusted with certain

property or he gained domain over such property which was

not his own

(iii) Accused committed criminal breach of trust with respect to

such property

14.3 The offence under section 467 is an aggravated form of the offence

under section 466 IPC. The essential ingredients to constitute the

9

offence punishable under the said section are (a) commission of

forgery (b) that such commission of forgery must be in relation to a

document purporting to be

(i) A valuable property or

(ii) A will or

(iii) An authority to adopt a son or

(iv) Which purport to give authority to any person to make or

transfer any valuable security or

(v) Receipt the principle interest or dividend thereon

(vi) To receive or deliver any money, movable property or

valuable security or any document purporting to be an

acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of

money

(vii) And acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any

immovable property or valuable security

14.4 For Offence punishable under section 468 IPC, the ingredients are

(a) A Commission of forgery

(b) that the accused did so intending that the document or

electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of

cheating.

14.5 To bring home the charge under section 471 either of the two

requirements ‘knowledge’ or ‘reason to believe’ must be proved in

the sense that they are deducible from various circumstances of

the case. The essential ingredients of the offence under section 471

are as follows:-

10

(a) The accused fraudulently or dishonestly used a document or

electronic record as genuine

(b) The accused new or had reasoned to believe that the

document or electronic record was a forged one

14.6 The offence punishable under section 120B IPC to constitute the

criminal conspiracy, there must be agreement between two or more

persons. The agreement should be to do or cause to be done some

illegal act or some act which is not illegal, by illegal means,

provided that where the agreement is other than one to commit an

offence, the prosecution must prove that some act besides the

agreement was done by one or more of the parties in pursuance of

it.

15. Now the question is whether the allegations in the complaint along

with initial deposition are sufficient to constitute aforesaid alleged offences

16. The entire genesis of the dispute arises out of an auction sale

conducted by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The advertisement

published in the daily newspaper expressly disclosed about

(i) Symbolic possession

(ii) “as is where is basis” and

(iii) Requirement of prior inspection by intending bidders.

17. The opposite party no.1/complainant participated in the auction with

full knowledge of the aforesaid conditions. The investigating officer after

investigation specifically concluded that the dispute is civil in nature. This

High Court also in WPA No. 22120 of 2023 observed that the dispute is civil

in character and parties ought to pursue civil remedies. It was also observed

11

that the writ petitioner’s property is totally distinct and different from the

auctioned property and the schedule of both the properties are different.

18. It bears no repetition that the gravamen of the offence under section

415 of the IPC is providing of false and fraudulent representation at the

inception of the transaction and thereby to induce the aggrieved to deliver

property. In the fact of the instant case there appears to be no allegation

that the petitioners herein had made any false representation to the opposite

party, or any wilful misrepresentation. That apart no property is alleged to

have delivered by the opposite party, pursuant to any representation of the

petitioners herein, nor has the petitioners received any property from the

opposite party. Thus, even if the entire allegation levelled in the petition of

complaint is taken in its entirety, no prima facie case of cheating can be said

to have been made out against the petitioners as there was no malafide

intention from the very inception of the transaction to cheat the opposite

party. Therefore the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under

section 420 of the IPC as sought to be foisted upon the petitioners by the

Opposite party no.2 in the letter of complaint is missing.

19. So far as allegation under section 406 is concerned, in the conspectus

of allegations in the instant case, there do not exist any allegation of any

entrustment of any valuable property or it’s subsequent misappropriation by

the opposite party/complainant with the petitioners, which are the primary

ingredients to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust.

20. In connection with the allegations levelled under section 409 IPC, it

appears that the petitioners are bank officials who discharged there official

duties in course of auction proceeding under statutory mechanism.

12

Therefore no entrustment coupled with dishonest misappropriation has

either been alleged or demonstrated. Infact the opposite party no.1

deliberately suppressed while lodged the complaint, that the Consumer

Commission by its order dated 10.06.2024, directed the complainant to take

sale certificate as well as possession from the Bank and such suppression

also demonstrate malafide intention on the part of the complainant.

21. In order to constitute offence under section 467 of the IPC,

commission of the offence of forgery is an essential ingredients. The offence

of forgery has been defined under section 463 of the IPC as making of any

false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic

record with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person

or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property

or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit

fraud or that fraud may be committed. Thus, making of false document is

an essential ingredient of offence of forgery under section 464 of the IPC.

The first clause clearly states that a person is said to make a false document

to dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or

part of a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such

document or part of document was made signed sealed executed

transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by

whose authority he knows that it was not made signed sealed or executed.

22. On perusal of the final report submitted by the investigating officer in

the form of closure of investigation, it appears that there exists no iota of

allegation which even satisfies the requirement of making a false documents

per se the petitioners herein. It only appears that the allegation of forgery

13

has been made in the complaint on an apprehension without their being any

actual commission of offence. No allegations have been levelled in the

complaint for creation of any false document within the meaning of section

464 of the IPC against the petitioners. There appears to be no iota of

evidence that the petitioners have enjoyed any wrongful gain by causing

wrongful loss to the opposite party. Infact the allegation of forgery is vague

and omnibus. No allegation has been made about manipulation of

documents. Thus, the primary requirement for the offence of forgery i.e.

‘making a false document’ by the petitioners herein is absent in the

complaint and the order of the court below clearly shows that he did not

apply his judicial mind while considering the fact that even if the allegations

levelled against petitioners are taken to be true they cannot be held liable

under relevant provisions for the commission of the offence of forgery under

the Indian Penal Code.

23. In the instant case meeting of mind and connivance between the

accused persons which is the basic ingredients that constitutes the offence

of criminal conspiracy under section 120B of IPC is completely missing in

the complaint and there is nothing to show that the petitioners/the accused

persons in pursuance of a common design had acted anything for any

wrongful gain.

24. The Apex Court in Delhi Race club, 1940 limited and Ors. Vs.

state of UP and another, reported in 2024 SCC online SC 2248 has laid

down that to constitute of the offence of cheating criminal intention is

necessary at the time of making false and misleading representation i.e.

since inception. Mere proof of entrustment is sufficient in case of criminal

14

breach of trust. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust the offender is

lawfully entrusted with the property and thereafter he dishonestly

misappropriated the same. Whereas in case of cheating the offender

fraudulently or dishonestly induced a person by deceiving him to deliver any

property therefore charge under section 406 and 420 of the IPC cannot go

together hand in hand.

25. The Opposite party no.1/complainant deliberately suppressed the

order of the consumer commission as stated above. By non-disclosure the

complainant has concealed the existence of the order by a competent Forum

which obviously is the causative incident for the opposite parties allegation

of perpetration of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners

26. During investigation I.O. forwarded a letter on 30.01.2023 which

discloses that the complainant is parking her car at a car parking space at

the said building but according to him the area he is using is only

approximately 70 sq.ft., though he purchased an area of 148 sq. ft. from

accused bank and it was further alleged that the remaining portion of car

parking space was somehow been occupied by a different vehicle. Therefore,

the real dispute all along was in respect of handing over possession of entire

148 sq.ft. to the complainant by the Bank. But nevertheless from the four

corners of the case there is no iota of evidence that the bank while put the

property in auction had made any fraudulent disclosure in respect of their

entire ownership of 148sq.ft. in the garage space.

27. The investigating authority while submitted final report in the form of

closure of investigation stated that investigation revealed

“(i) The complainant had purchased the subject garage on e-auction

15

(ii) The said space was sold by the Bank Authority ‘as is where is’, as is

what is’ and ‘whatever there is’ basis as per rules and regulations of bank after taking

symbolic possession of the said garage.

(ii) Neither the subject garage space nor the others garage space of the

alleged build is demarcated clearly. The owners are keeping their respective cars on

mutual understanding.

(iv) So, Bank had appeared before DM, 24(PGS (S) under SARFAESI At for

obtaining p[physical possession of that garage and finally took physical possession as

per order of DM, 24 PGS (S) on 20.07.23.

(v) The complainant was also keeping his car at that space since after his

purchase from October 2021 to till 20.7.23 i.e. the date on which accused Bank

Authority took physical possession of the subject garage space for handling over the

sale certificate, original Title Deeds of the said property as well as the physical

possession of the subject car parking space to the instant complainant as per rules.

(vi) Despite receiving intimation from the accused Bank authority, the instant

complainant showed reluctance in taking the Sale Certificate, Original Title Deeds of the

said property as well as in taking physical possession of the subject car parking space

for which the instant case was registered.

(vii) A Civil Case Vide Case No. CC/27/2023 is till pending before, Ld.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alipore over the same issue.”

28. This High Court while disposed of WPA no. 22120 of 2023 has made

categorical observation that the remedy of the petitioner here is to seek a

declaration that the bank acted de hors its powers and exceeded jurisdiction

under section 14 of the SARFAESI in illegally taking possession of the

petitioners property and to seek further remedy of recovery of possession of

her property which has been allegedly taken by the bank illegally and thirdly

the petitioner may also seek a declaration that the sale conducted in respect

of the secured asset by the bank does not bind the petitioner in any manner.

Therefore this High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach before

competent civil court having jurisdiction with the issues sought to be raised

by the petitioner by way of a properly constituted suit.

29. Such observation of this High Court also clearly shows that the

dispute between the petitioners and the complainant was all along over

16

possession and/or recovery of possession but not over the ownership of the

bank and for which this court directed to approach before competent civil

court. Though the complainants contention is that a mandamus appeal is

pending against the order passed in the said writ application but pendency

of such appeal is not at all relevant untill and unless, such order is set

aside. The observation made by the Single Bench and the consumer

commission still hold good. The consumer forum while disposing the

Miscellaneous Application no. MA 10 of 2024 in complain case no. CC 27 of

2023 have made the following observation which the complainant has

suppressed in complaint filed on 10

th June, 2024

“The complainant and Ops are present. Today is date fixed for hearing of the

M.A. application being NO. 10/2024 dated 08/04/2024. Heard the both side

and perused the M.A. application and prayer of the Ops, hence direction is

given to the complainant to take sale certificate and physical possession of the

property as per schedule of sale certificate from the authorized officer of SBI

but reimbursement of any expenses are not considered in this stage. Hence

the M.A. application being No. 10/2024 is disposed of . Complainant files

reply today. Copy not served and not filed on record. Fix 02/08/2024 for

evidence by OP”.

30. The advertisement published by the Bank in daily newspaper clearly

states about symbolic possession of which has been taken by the authorized

officer of bank will be sold on ‘as is where is’, ‘as is what is’ and ‘whatever

there is’ basis on 30.11.2011 for recovery of Rs. 16,16,418.87/-. The terms

and condition of the sale uploaded in the website of the secured

creditor/bank clearly stated about ‘symbolic possession’ wherein also the

specified date and time during which inspection of secured asset to be sold

has been mentioned and it is also stipulated that the intending bidders

should satisfy themselves about the assets and there specification in

column 12. It is not the case of the complainant that no such inspection

17

was carried out by the investigation agency in terms of column 12 of the

terms and condition of sale. Moreover, it is also required to be mentioned

that clause 13 (r) of the said terms and condition clearly stipulates

“In case of any dispute arises as to the validity of the bid(s), amount of bid,

EMD or as to the eligibility of the bidder, authority of the person representing

the bidder, the interpretation and decision of the Authorized officer shall be

final. In such an eventuality, the bank shall in its sole discretion be entitled to

call of the sale and put the property to sale once again on any date and at

such time as may be decided by the Bank. For any kind of dispute, bidders

are required to contact the concerned authorized officer of the concerned Bank

branch only.”

31. The Bank by its letter dated 20.07.2023 had clearly requested the

complainant to take possession from the bank immediately along with the

certificate of sale. Therefore a bare perusal of the allegation and the

ingredients to attract them, as adverted to hereinbefore would reveal that

the allegations are vague and they do not carry the essential ingredients to

constitute the alleged offences. The factual position reveals that the genesis

as also the purpose of criminal proceeding is vaxious and the dispute

involve is essentially civil in nature. The defacto complainant have given a

cloak of criminal offence in the issue. All these aspects of the matter were

not considered by the concerned magistrate. The order impugned does not

reflect that he at all considered

(i) The final report submitted by investigating agency in the form of

closure of the investigation

(ii) The finding of this High Court in WPA no. 22120 of 2023

(iii) The order passed by the consumer commission

(iv) Absence of ingredients of the alleged offences.

18

32. In this context the relevant order of magistrate by which he issued

process against the petitioners required to be reproduced below:-

“05.12.24

Today is fixed for SA

Record is taken up for SA

The complainant is examined u/s 200 of the Cr.PC

Prima facie offence made out against accused persons u/s

120B/420/409/467/468/471 of the IPC.

Complainant to file requisite at once.

Issue process against the accused persons.

Fix 06.02.25 for SR and appearance.”

33. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate

and Ors. reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 the apex court cautioned in the

following words:-

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter.

Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that

the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in

the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the

Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his

mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to

examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence

both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient

for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is

not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of

preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has

to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself

put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find

out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any

offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”

34. Infact from the facts and circumstances of the case it is manifestly

clear that defacto complainant has implicated the present petitioners, who

are the employees of the bank to put pressure for obtaining possession of

the garage space and to settle the civil dispute between the parties and

therefore it clearly attracts the parameters laid down in RP Kapoor case

(supra) as well as Bhajanlal’s case (supra) and therefore the criminal

complaint is liable to be quashed invoking this court jurisdiction under

section 482 of the Cr.P.C., as also I have no hesitation to hold that

19

permitting continuance of the instant criminal proceedings in the aforesaid

circumstances would result in abuse of the process of court and also

miscarriage of justice.

35. In view of above CRR 65 of 2025 is allowed.

36. The impugned proceeding being complaint case no. AC 3456 of 24

presently pending before 9

th judicial magistrate Alipore is hereby quashed.

37. Connected Applications also thus stand disposed of.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied for, be given

to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.)