Disposed¶15

Tinkari Bhuiya v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC14 Jan 2026CRR/425/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRR 425 of 2024; Tinkari Bhuiya v. The State of West Bengal; High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri; Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 498A IPC; Kotwali Police Station Case No. 269 of 2009; G.R. Case No. 267 of 2009; charge-sheet dated 28.02.2011; belated quashing plea after 13 years cannot be entertained; liberty to petitioner to argue issues at trial; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Revisional application disposed of without quashing; liberty reserved to the petitioner to canvass the issues agitated in the revisional application during the trial. ¶15

Tinkari Bhuiya Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

14.01.2026 Item no. 60. Court No.3. Rakib

¶2

In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

¶3

CRR 425 of 2024

¶4

Tinkari Bhuiya VS

¶5

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

¶6

Mr. Rabiul Islam

¶7

Mr. Raju Mondal ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Saikat Chatterjee …..for the State.

¶8

Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.

¶9

Learned advocate for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Kotwali Police Station case no. 269 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 267 of 2009 wherein after the investigation was concluded charge-sheet was submitted on or about 28.02.2011 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in connection with the instant criminal proceedings on the basis of embellished statement and with a malicious intention the same was on ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance.

¶10

Earlier a revisional application was filed by one of the coaccused of the present case which was disposed of. The

¶11

¶12

revisional application is not supported by statement of witnesses nor is there certified copy of the order-sheets in respect of the stage of the case before the learned trial Court.

¶13

Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer which have been advanced.

¶14

I find that the application for quashing of the proceedings was preferred after 13 years of the charge-sheet having been submitted. Having considered that such belated plea cannot be entertained, I direct that the petitioner in course of the trial would be at liberty to canvass the issues agitated in the present revisional application.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations CRR 425 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶16

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶17

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

¶18

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Tinkari Bhuiya v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinkari Bhuiya v. 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

Sujit Das Vs the State of West Bengal

Sivnath Chakraborty @ Shivnath Chakraborty Vs the State of West Bengal

Deepak Barman@Dipak Barman Vs the State of West Bengal

Sarita Sinhal Vs the State of West Bengal

Atiar Miah@Atiyar Miya Vs the State of West Bengal

Raju Mangar@Tika Raju Vs the State of West Bengal