Allowed¶18

Rajesh Kumar Garg @ Raju Garg v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC4 Jul 2025CRR/288/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench; CRR 288 of 2025; Suvra Ghosh, J.; decided 04.07.2025; quashing of charge-sheet no. 49/2021 dated 18.02.2021; NJP police station case no. 1465 of 2020 dated 21.12.2020; Section 3(1)(f)(g) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; Section 528 BNS; petitioner Rajesh Kumar Garg @ Raju Garg; tea garden dispute; Krishna Lama sale deed alleged forged; no allegation under SC/ST Act against petitioner; abuse of process; charge-sheet quashed.

What did the court decide?

Revisional application allowed; charge-sheet no. 49/2021 dated 18th February, 2021 pertaining to NJP police station case no. 1465 of 2020 dated 21st December, 2020 quashed; no order as to costs. ¶18

Rajesh Kumar Garg @ Raju Garg Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revisional application allowed; charge-sheet no. 49/2021 dated 18th February, 2021 pertaining to NJP police station case no. 1465 of 2020 dated 21st December, 2020 quashed; no order as to costs.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet no. 49/2021 and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in NJP police station case no. 1465 of 2020 under Section 3(1)(f)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ought to be quashed.

¶8

Court's answer

Admittedly there being no allegation against the petitioner under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the complaint as well as the charge-sheet filed against him does not lie.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, having no nexus with the offence alleged, cannot be made to suffer the ordeal of a trial; allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶15

Key takeaways

It is not in dispute that the petitioner neither wrongfully occupied nor cultivated the tea garden in question nor wrongfully dispossessed the defacto complainant/his father; further, the deed allegedly executed by the defacto complainant's father in favour of Krishna Lama has not been challenged by the defacto complainant before the appropriate forum.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (S. 528 BNS) - quashing of charge-sheet - charge-sheet no. 49/2021 dated 18.02.2021 under S. 3(1)(f)(g), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in NJP police station case no. 1465 of 2020 - petitioner allegedly engaged only in supply of tea leaves purchased from Krishna Lama, claimant-owner under a sale deed which the defacto complainant alleges is forged but has not challenged before any forum - court finds it not in dispute that petitioner neither wrongfully occupied nor cultivated the garden nor dispossessed the defacto complainant/his father - no allegation against petitioner under the Act, hence complaint and charge-sheet do not lie - continuance would be abuse of process - charge-sheet quashed, application allowed, no costs.

¶1

uhj

¶2

83 04.07.2025 jb. jdt.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

¶4

CRR 288 of 2025

¶5

Re: An application under Section 528 of the BNS

¶6

In Re : Rajesh Kumar Garg @ Raju Garg ... Petitioner.

¶7

Dr. Arjun Chowdhury Ms. Pratusha Dutta Chowdhury Ms. Sunayana Parveen Ms. Riya Agarwal Mr. Mantu Mandal … for the Petitioner. Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty Mr. Abhijit Sarkar … for the State

¶8

The petitioner seeks quashing of charge-sheet pertaining to NJP police station case no. 1465 of 2020 dated 21^st December, 2020.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tea garden in question originally belonged to the father of the defacto complainant who sold out the same in favour of one Krishna Lama who has been carrying on cultivation therein. The petitioner has a business of supply of tea leaves from the said owner and selling out the same in open market and has no further nexus with the owner or the property in question. He has been falsely implicated in this case and charge-sheet has been submitted without any basis.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer.

¶11

¶12

Learned counsel for the defacto complainant also opposes the prayer and submits that the tea garden in question belongs to the father of the defacto complainant who never sold out the same in favour of Krishna Lama. The sale deed was forged by Krishna Lama who claims to be the owner of the tea garden.

¶13

I have considered the rival contention of the parties and material on record. It is not in dispute that the tea garden in question originally belonged to the father of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant disputes sale of the said garden in favour of Krishna Lama. Surprisingly the deed allegedly executed by his father in favour of Krishna Lama has not been challenged by the defacto complainant before the appropriate forum. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has neither wrongfully occupied, nor cultivated the garden in question or wrongfully dispossessed the defacto complainant/his father.

¶14

Charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under Section 3(1)(f)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶15

It is a fact that the defacto complainant and his father are members of the Scheduled Tribe. But admittedly there being no allegation against the petitioner under the Act, the complaint as well as charge sheet filed against him does not lie. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer the ordeal of a trial despite having no nexus with the offence alleged. Allowing the proceeding to continue shall be an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶16

¶17

In the said backdrop, the revisional application is allowed.

¶18

The charge-sheet being no. 49/2021 dated 18^th February, 2021 pertaining to NJP police station case no. 1465 of 2020 dated 21^st December, 2020 be quashed.

¶19

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in

¶21

the petition are deemed not to be admitted.

¶22

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶23

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Rajesh Kumar Garg @ Raju Garg v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Garg @ Raju Garg v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sitam Xalxo Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Budhyadeb Barman and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal

Parvina Khatun and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal

Arun Kumar Vs the State of West Bengal

Biswajit Sarkar Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Hachibul Hoque @ Hasibul Haque Vs the State of West Bengal