Quashing Not a Remedy once Charges are Framed, Read HC Judgment

In a significant procedural challenge concerning the misuse of inherent powers to derail criminal prosecutions, the Calcutta High Court stepped in to examine whether a man accused of assault, stalking, and outraging a woman’s modesty could short-circuit an ongoing trial by invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case placed the spotlight on a recurring courtroom tactic, seeking quashing after charges are framed, prompting the Court to closely scrutinise where judicial restraint must begin.

The controversy began with a complaint lodged by the woman in May 2022 at Bishnupur Police Station, alleging that she was wrongfully restrained, assaulted, threatened, stalked, and subjected to sexually coloured behaviour, with accusations extending to an attempt to cause grievous harm. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and charges were eventually framed under multiple provisions of the IPC.

The accused moved the High Court claiming false implication, pointing to alleged inconsistencies, missing medical evidence, non-examination of certain witnesses, and asserting that the FIR was merely a counterblast to an earlier complaint he had filed. The prosecution and the complainant, however, opposed the plea, stressing that the trial had already progressed, the victim had been examined, and the accused had earlier failed in his attempt to secure discharge before the trial court.

Rejecting the plea for quashing, the High Court drew a sharp distinction between pre-trial intervention and interference once charges are framed. Citing settled Apex Court precedent, the Court reminded that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised “sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases,” and “not to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate.” 

The Court noted that serious allegations were borne out from the FIR and the case diary, that the trial court had applied its mind while refusing discharge, and that rival complaints between the parties could not, by themselves, render the prosecution abusive.

Consequently, the Court declined to intervene and held that allowing the trial to proceed would not amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Case Title: Uttam Mondal Vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No.: CRR 4805 OF 2023

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das.

Advocate for the Petitioner:  Adv. Rit Banerjee,

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Arijit Ganguli, Adv. Shiladitya Banerjee,

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com