Biswanath Mahato Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Biswanath Mahato Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revisional application allowed; the proceeding pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia (Session (SPL) Case No. 78 of 2023) and any order passed therein quashed; case diary to be returned to the learned advocate for the State; urgent Photostat certified copy to be supplied on compliance with formalities.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceeding arising out of Session (SPL) Case No. 78 of 2023 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia - the third consecutive complaint by opposite party no. 2 over the same forest-patta land dispute, lodged after the petitioner's acquittals in two earlier trials of similar allegations - should be quashed as an abuse of the process of law. +1 more

Court's answer

Simply because the complainant falls under the Scheduled community, a dispute basically civil in nature pertaining to a case of dispossession cannot be cloaked as a criminal dispute, especially when his previous similar allegations were nullified on the strength of evidences by pronouncing judgment of acquittal.

Ratio / Principle

On assimilation of the facts and circumstances, the dispute pertains to the allotment of land in favour of the de-facto complainant and his four sons and its enjoyment; the previous cases revealed the allotted land was not demarcated or identified with a boundary wall, so a dispute is plausible but should not be addressed with repeated complaints; so far as the penal sections incorporated for the offences as alleged under Section 447 and 506 are concerned, the ingredients are absolutely missing.

Key takeaways

From the overall conspectus there may have been a heated altercation over the land dispute, but there is lack of sufficient materials to establish that the present petitioner abused the complainant in public view calling his caste name; the SC/ST Act allegations of caste-name abuse/intimidation within public view are therefore not established.ratio¶54
In the wake of the above discussions, this Court is of the view that continuance of the instant proceeding is abuse of process of law.ratio¶59
In view of the above, the revisional application stands allowed; the proceeding pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and any order passed therein is hereby quashed, and the case diary is to be returned to the learned advocate for the State.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR 2088 of 2023, High Court at Calcutta (Appellate Side, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction), judgment on 12.12.2025, Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J. - Biswanath Mahato v. State of West Bengal & Anr.: Revisional application to quash the proceeding in Session (SPL) Case No. 78 of 2023 (Sections 447/354B/506 IPC read with Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r)/(s) SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, founded on an April 2023 complaint by opposite party no. 2 alleging trespass, destruction of vegetables/plants, forced cultivation and molestation of a female family member on 02.04.2023. This was the third consecutive complaint over the same Forest Department patta land dispute: the first (Purulia P.S. Case No. 60 of 2018; Sessions Trial Case No. 33 of 2018, judgment 13.11.2019) and the second (P.S. Case No. 261 of 2019; Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2021, acquittal on 19.12.2022 in terms of S.235 CrPC) ended in acquittal. Relying on Haji Iqubal v. State of U.P. (2024) 15 SCC 776, the Bhajanlal parameters (clause (g) of para 8.1; 1992 AIR 604) and Ramawater v. State of M.P. (2021) SCC Online SC 966, the Court held: the ingredients of Sections 447 and 506 IPC are 'absolutely missing'; the land was never demarcated/bounded and the dispute over allotment and enjoyment of the patta land is plausible but should not be addressed with repeated complaints; there is lack of sufficient materials to show abuse by caste name in public view; a basically civil dispossession dispute cannot be cloaked as criminal merely because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled community; and continuance of the proceeding is an abuse of the process of law. Revisional application allowed; proceeding and any order passed therein quashed; case diary returned to the State's advocate.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Proceeding arising out of Session (SPL) Case No. 78 of 2023 (Purulia (M) P.S. Case No. 78 of 2023) under Sections 447/354B/506 IPC, 1860 read with Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r)/(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, in which the charge sheet has been submitted; sought to be quashed by this revisional application.¶9
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia
Prior proceeding
First complaint: on March 12, 2018 the father of opposite party no. 2 lodged an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC; Purulia (M) Police Station Case No. 60 of 2018 started under Sections 447/506 IPC, 1860 read with Sections 3(1)(iv)(v)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging construction on patta land allotted by the Forest Department (about 32 decimals) and abuse of opposite party no. 2 by the word 'Choto Jat' on March 21, 2018.¶11
Prior proceeding
First case charge framing: after completion of investigation and submission of charge sheet, the learned Trial Court framed the charge under Sections 447/506 IPC, 1860 along with Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(r) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.¶12
Prior proceeding
First trial detail: Sessions Trial Case No. 33 of 2018, judgment delivered on 13th day of November, 2019; case started under section 3(1)(iv)(v)(x) of the SC/ST (P.O.A) Act 1989 but charge framed under amended sections 3(1)(f)(g) and (r) with Sections 447 and 506 IPC; incident alleged on March 21st, 2018; 6 prosecution witnesses including the de facto complainant; DSP requisitioned Forest Department and B.L&L.R.O reports but no paper produced at trial to substantiate dispossession/possession; land of 28 decimals in plot no. 584, Lokudih Mouza, ownership of entire plot unascertainable; prosecution evidence fell short of conclusive decision; acquittal.¶33
Prior proceeding
First acquittal: the learned Trial Court, after hearing both parties, passed an order of acquittal on November 30, 2019.¶13
Prior proceeding
Second complaint: on 12th November, 2019 the father of opposite party no. 2 lodged a fresh complaint alleging that on 7th November, 2019 at about 11 A.M. the petitioner destroyed vegetables and threatened with dire consequences; Purulia Police Station Case No. 261 of 2019 started.¶15
Prior proceeding
Challenge to second FIR and charge sheet therein: petitioner approached this High Court as CRR 3701 of 2019; in the meantime the investigating authority submitted the charge sheet under Sections 341/447/323/307/506/427 IPC, 1860 read with Section 3(1)(f)(g) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.¶16
Prior proceeding
Second trial detail: Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2021 (complaint dated 2nd November, 2019; cause of action 7.11.2019 at about 11 A.M. - destruction of vegetables, taking possession for 'Khamar chula', attempted killing by strangulation); charge framed under Section 3(1)(f)(g) of the said Act along with Sections 447/427/307/323 IPC; Trial Court held the first and foremost ingredient was entry into the patta land; Raju Sabar received 4 decimals and his sons 8 decimals each in plot no. 584; complaint did not mention in whose patta the accused entered; land not surveyed or encompassed, no boundary wall; accused's house about 200/250 ft away; prosecution could not prove dispossession or entry; acquittal.¶37
Prior proceeding
Second acquittal: the Learned Trial Court framed the charge, trial commenced, and on December 19, 2022, after considering the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses, acquitted the petitioner in terms of Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.¶17
Prior proceeding
Third complaint (instant case): in April, 2023 opposite party no. 2 alleged that on April 2, 2023 at about 7 A.M. the petitioner destroyed plants, forcefully cultivated the land, and on his protest destroyed vegetables and molested a female member of the family; on the strength of the said complaint Purulia (M) police station case no. 78 of 2023 started under Sections 447/354B/506 IPC, 1860 along with Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(r) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.¶17
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet in the instant case submitted on completion of investigation, against which the instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioner.¶19