Allowed¶18

Papia Mondal Sur @ Papia Mandal Sur @ Papia Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Criminal revision – quashing of criminal proceeding

Calcutta HC7 Jul 2026CRR/4499/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quashing of criminal proceeding; Section 528 BNSS; omnibus/general allegations; no specific role attributed; abuse of process; G.R. Case No. 277 of 2023; Judicial Magistrate 1st Court Sealdah; Sections 323/354/114 IPC; property dispute between near relatives; iron grill installation; female accused (sister-in-law of defacto-complainant); FIR-named accused; CRR 4499 of 2025; CRAN 2 of 2026; related proceeding CRR 4809 of 2024 (Saminul Islam) quashed 06.02.2025. Disposition: application allowed, impugned proceeding quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned proceeding being G.R. case no. 277 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah; CRR 4499 of 2025 along with CRAN 2 of 2026 allowed. ¶18

Papia Mondal Sur @ Papia Mandal Sur @ Papia Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the impugned proceeding being G.R. case no. 277 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah; CRR 4499 of 2025 along with CRAN 2 of 2026 allowed.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding being G.R. case no. 277 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah, against the petitioner ought to be quashed as an abuse of the process of the court.

¶5

Court's answer

On the case diary materials, no specific role has been attributed to any accused person and the allegations against the petitioner are omnibus in nature, on the basis of which there is hardly any chance of conviction of the petitioner even if trial is allowed to continue.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

General allegations are levelled against all known and unknown accused persons including the petitioner; no specific or distinct allegation has been made against any accused including the petitioner, so the exact role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence is not ascertainable.

¶17

Key takeaways

At best the allegations are made out on account of small skirmishes among near relatives over a property dispute and do not warrant prosecution.ratio¶17
Further continuation of the impugned proceeding would be nothing but a mere abuse of the process of the court; accordingly the proceeding is quashed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision — quashing of criminal proceeding — G.R. Case No. 277 of 2023 (charge-sheet under Sections 323/354/114 IPC) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah, against Papia Mondal Sur @ Papia Mandal Sur @ Papia Mondal — complaint of 28.01.2023 regarding installation of iron grill on common areas and alleged molestation of the defacto-complainant — co-accused Saminul Islam's proceeding already quashed in CRR 4809 of 2024 vide order dated 06.02.2025 — held, on perusal of the complaint and case diary, that no specific or distinct role was attributed to any accused, known or unknown; the allegations against the petitioner were omnibus and general, at best small skirmishes among near relatives over a property dispute, affording hardly any chance of conviction even if trial continued — further continuation would be a mere abuse of the process of the court — impugned proceeding quashed; CRR 4499 of 2025 with CRAN 2 of 2026 allowed (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.).

¶1

7.7.2026 13 sb CRR 4499 of 2025 with CRAN 2 of 2026 Papia Mondal Sur @ Papia Mandal Sur @ Papia Mondal Vs.

¶2

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

¶3

Mr. Dipanjan Dutt Mr. Surojit Saha …for the Petitioner Mr. Souvick Mitra …for the O.P. no. 2 Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP Mr. Imran Siddiqui …for the State

¶4

Leave to correct the name of the court in the cause title of the application, is granted.

¶5

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. case no. 277 of 2023, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Court, Sealdah.

¶6

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled in the complaint are inter alia to the effect that on 28^th January, 2023 at around 11-11.30 am, the accused no. 1 came to her residence accompanied with few unknown men carrying hammer, cutter etc. and started installing iron grill on the common passage and common rooms of the said premises. The defacto-complainant along with her two daughters were not informed about such activities. Thereafter, the petitioner and other accused persons had allegedly attacked the defacto-complainant and had pushed the defacto-complainant and touched her chest

¶7

¶8

in order to outrage her modesty and when the defactocomplainant restrained the unknown male persons, the said accused persons forcefully touched the defactocomplainant’s back portion and hip. The defactocomplainant fell down on the ground and sustained injury. On the basis of her complain, the instant proceeding has been initiated.

¶9

After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323/354/114 of the IPC against the petitioner and another accused namely, Saminul Islam. He further submits that the entire allegations under Section 354 IPC revolve around the other accused namely, Saminul Islam and three or four unknown accused persons, who were not identified during investigation.

¶10

However, said Saminul Islam preferred a revisional application before this Court seeking quashment and this court while disposing of CRR 4809 of 2024, had been pleased to quash the proceeding qua the petitioner, Saminul Islam vide order dated 6^th February, 2025. He further submits that the petitioner herein is a female accused and the allegation under Section 354/323/114 of the IPC against her does not arise. He further submits that petitioner is the sister-in-law of the defacto-complainant and she has been entangled in order to wreck vengeance. Therefore, further continuance of the impugned proceeding against the petitioner would be nothing but a mere abuse of process of the court.

¶11

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the present petitioner is an FIR named accused and specific allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner in the complaint and also in the statement recorded during investigation along with the medical papers. Therefore, the present petitioner is not on the same footing with that of the accused, Saminul Islam and therefore, the petitioner should face trial to unearth the truth and for which, this is not a fit case where the proceeding can be quashed invoking this court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State referred some documents as annexures along with the instant application and has conceded the argument placed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶14

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties. On perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and other materials available in the record, it appears that over installing iron grill at the premises, one hot altercation took place in between the petitioner and the defactocomplainant, who are near relatives.

¶15

Having gone through the materials placed in the case diary, it appears to me that no specific role has been attributed against any of the accused persons and the allegations against the present petitioner are omnibus in nature, on the basis of which there is hardly any chance of conviction of the petitioner, even if trial is allowed to continue. In fact, from the materials available in the case

¶16

¶17

diary, it has revealed that general allegations are levelled against all the known and unknown accused persons including the petitioner herein. Complainant alleged that all accused persons have committed the alleged offences. No specific or distinct allegation has been made against any of the accused including the petitioner herein and no specific role has been attributed in furtherance of the general allegations made against the accused persons. This simply leads to a situation wherefrom, it is not ascertainable, the exact role played by each accused in furtherance of offence. The allegations levelled at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes among near relatives over property dispute and do not warrant prosecution. Therefore, I find that further continuation of the impugned proceeding would be nothing but a mere abuse of process of the court.

¶18

In view of above, CRR 4499 of 2025 along with CRAN 2 of 2026 are allowed.

¶19

The impugned proceeding being G.R. case no. 277 of 2023, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Court, Sealdah is hereby quashed.

¶20

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

¶21

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Papia Mondal Sur @ Papia Mandal Sur @ Papia Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papia Mondal Sur @ Papia Mandal Sur @ Papia Mondal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tutul Majumder @ Suraj Majumder and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Shibnath Chatterjee and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Xxx and Another Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Debdas Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Nachhi Bibi @ Nachi Bewa Vs the State of West Bengal

Mantu Barui Vs State of West Bengal