Dhanpath Ray Rathi@Dhanpath Roy Rathi Vs the Stateof West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dhanpath Ray Rathi@Dhanpath Roy Rathi Vs the Stateof West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the impugned proceeding in GR Case No. 2344/22 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Siliguri; the revisional application stands disposed of; personal appearance of the concerned Officer-in-Charge through video conference noted and dispensed with.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceeding in GR Case No. 2344/22 (charge-sheet under Sections 341/506 of the IPC and Section 24 of the Maintenance and welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007) should be quashed on the ground that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and continuation would be an abuse of the process of Court. +1 more

Court's answer

The matter relates to a family dispute between relatives over repair work; there is no material to indicate any wrongful restraint, and even the allegations of giving threats do not attract the mischief of Section 506 of the Penal Code; therefore no prima facie case appears to have been made out against the petitioners under Sections 341 and 506 of the Penal Code.

Ratio / Principle

From a plain reading of the FIR and the statements of witnesses, not even a prima facie case is made out under Section 24 of the Maintenance and welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (referred to as the said Special Act).

Key takeaways

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the impugned proceeding in GR Case No. 2344/22 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Siliguri is quashed.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri), CRR 467 of 2025, decided on 25.03.2026 by Jay Sengupta, J. — Criminal revisional application seeking quashing of the proceeding in GR Case No. 2344/22 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Siliguri, in which a charge-sheet stood submitted under Sections 341/506 of the IPC and Section 24 of the Maintenance and welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, arising out of a family dispute between relatives over repair work at a common household. Held: there was no material to indicate any wrongful restraint, and the allegations of giving threats did not attract the mischief of Section 506 of the Penal Code, so no prima facie case was made out under Sections 341 and 506 of the Penal Code; on a plain reading of the FIR and witness statements, no prima facie case was made out under Section 24 of the said Special Act either. The impugned proceeding was quashed and the revisional application disposed of; the video-conference appearance of the concerned Officer-in-Charge was noted and dispensed with. The private opposite party did not appear despite service.

In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Before:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta

CRR 467 of 2025

Dhanpath Ray Rathi @ Dhanpath Roy Rathi and anr

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and another

For the Petitioners	:	Mr. Abhilash Mittal Mr. Nigam Mittal
For the State	:	Mr. A.S. Chakraborty Mr. Abhijit Sarkar
For the Siliguri PS SI	:	Mr. Rakesh Debnath (VC)
Last heard on	:	25.03.2026
Judgement delivered on	:	25.03.2026

Jay Sengupta, J. :

This is an application praying for quashing of a proceeding in GR Case No. 2344/22 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4^th Court, Siliguri in which charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341/506 of the IPC and Section 24 of the Maintenance and welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Copy of communication in this regard, as filed in Court, is taken on record.

2

No one appears on behalf of the private opposite party despite service.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is the father of the petitioner No.2 and is aged about 88 years. He is wheelchair bound and unable to move without assistance. The de facto complainant is the brother of the petitioner No.1. The only allegation is that the petitioners had prevented the de facto complainant from undertaking repair work at the common household and gave threats to the de facto complainant. No prima facie case is made out. Any further continuation of the proceeding shall be an abuse of the process of Court.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the proceeding and submits that as per the direction passed by this Court earlier, the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station had informed the opposite party No.2 about the next date of hearing. The Officer-in-Charge of Khalpara TOP-II under Siliguri PS is present through video conference from Khalpara Town Post as he is presently involved in the security arrangement for the Hon’ble Chief Minister, who is visiting the district. He also submits that there are statements of witnesses, which only refer to the petitioners trying to prevent the de facto complainant from carrying out the repair work and giving threats.

It appears that the matter relates to a family dispute between relatives, one side allegedly preventing the other from doing some repair work. However, there is no material to indicate that there was any wrongful restraint made. Even the allegations of giving threats do not attract the mischief of Section 506 of the Penal Code. Therefore, no prima facie case

3

appears to have been made out against the petitioners under Sections 341 and 506 of the Penal Code.

From a plain reading of the FIR and the statements of witnesses, it does not appear that even a prima facie case made out under Section 24 of the said Special Act.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I hereby quash the impugned proceeding in GR Case No. 2344/22 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4^th Court, Siliguri.

Accordingly, the revisional application stands disposed of.

Personal appearance of the concerned Officer-in-Charge through video conference is noted and is dispensed with.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

3/SG