Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest - April 2025
The Calcutta High Court delivered 260 judgments in April 2025. We bring you a comprehensive digest featuring concise summaries, along with statistics on the number of judgments authored by each judge.
Access the complete digest by clicking here
SMT. PUSHPARANI DUTTA VS RANAJIT DUTTA [CRR/3595/2018]
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
The petitioner's revisional application challenging the acquittal under Section 498A IPC is maintainable, but caution is necessary to avoid converting it into an appeal. The trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction, and no grave injustice or failure of justice warranted interference. The revisional application is dismissed, upholding the acquittal order.
SITAL PRASAD SHAW @ GUPTA VS ASHISH BHATTACHARYA [CRR/1770/2011]
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
Sital Prasad Shaw @ Gupta is entitled to discharge from proceedings under Section 245(3) of the CrPC due to the prosecution's failure to complete evidence before charge within four years of the amended section's effect, resulting in a delay of over 43 years. This delay violated his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the prosecution did not provide sufficient cause for the delay. Proceedings against Shaw were quashed, and he was directed to be discharged. In a related matter, the name of the deceased opposite party, Ashish Bhattacharya, was substituted with Manas Kumar Mishra.
HEMENRA MULLICK VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [CRR/2735/2022]
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
The criminal revision petition by Hemendra Mullick was allowed, resulting in the quashing of proceedings against him. The owner of the tenanted premises was falsely implicated without evidence for offenses of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal intimidation. The allegations were deemed to warrant an intervention to prevent abuse of court processes, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings should be quashed.
PROFESSOR BIDYUT CHAKRABORTY VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [CRR/2599/2023]
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
The criminal revision application by the Vice-Chancellor, PRO, and Deputy Registrar of Visva-Bharati University was dismissed due to allegations suggesting offences under Sections 500 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(p)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused issued a press release naming the opposing party and alleging financial irregularities, which indicated malicious intent to defame. Additionally, claims of the Vice-Chancellor using derogatory language related to caste and restricting SC/ST/OBC officers' access suggested violations of the SC/ST Act. The allegations warranted a trial to investigate further.
AMITAVA GHOSH VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [CRR/4132/2023]
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
The criminal revision application was allowed, leading to the quashing of proceedings against the father-in-law and sister-in-law under Sections 498A, 325, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations were found to be vague and lacking specifics regarding dates, times, or methods of alleged abuse. The complainant did not live in the matrimonial home, and the collected evidence did not establish a prima facie case against the petitioners.
BIJOY RAM SINHA VS SHIB NATH BHADURI [SA/36/2001]
Bench: Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
The appeal by the defendant-appellants was accepted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff-respondents' suit as per the trial court's decision. The defendant-appellants properly served notice to the plaintiff-respondents before selling the property, with the presumption of service under the certificate of posting deemed valid and unchallenged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff-respondents waived their right of pre-emption by not acting during a previous sale in 1945, which barred their later claim. Additionally, the claim for specific performance of contract was deemed non-maintainable since it had been abandoned before the trial court, preventing relief from being granted by the appellate court.
DIPANJAN BHATTACHARJEE VS MS. LAD DEVI JAIN [CRR/1043/2022]
Bench: Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
The complaint against Dipanjan Bhattacharjee under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable due to insufficient averments to establish vicarious liability. The complaint failed to provide specific details regarding Bhattacharjee's role and responsibilities as a designated partner in the LLP, particularly neglecting his detailed denial of knowledge or participation in the transaction. Consequently, the complaint did not establish a prima facie case for vicarious liability under Section 141. Proceedings against him in the complaint case have been quashed.
DIPANJAN BHATTACHARJEE VS M/S SHANTILAL JAIN & SONS HUF [CRR/1045/2022]
Bench: Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
The complaint against Dipanjan Bhattacharjee did not meet the mandatory requirements under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to establish his vicarious liability. It lacked specific details regarding his role and involvement in the alleged offense, particularly in light of his denial of liability. Consequently, the criminal proceeding against him was quashed. The status of other accused persons was not addressed.
NARESH MAHATO VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [CRR/112/2025]
Bench: Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
The petitioner's criminal revision application challenging the NDPS case was dismissed. The petitioner's confession made while in custody was deemed to establish a prima facie case against him, with the potential to be considered as evidence if found voluntary and reliable. The evaluation of materials to assess the likelihood of conviction was not undertaken, as that task is reserved for the trial court. Although the co-accused's confession implicating the petitioner is generally inadmissible, the petitioner's own confession was acknowledged. The decision emphasized careful exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to avoid abuse of the court process while ensuring legitimate prosecution is not hindered. The petitioner was permitted to present grievances during the trial court proceedings at the charge hearing or another suitable stage.
AJAY KUMAR BAYEN @ AJAY BAYEN VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL [CRR/1995/2022]
Bench: Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
The criminal revision petition against the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. The lower courts established the complainant's case beyond reasonable doubt, while the appellant's claim of cheque misuse lacked supporting evidence. No gross misappreciation of evidence or legal error was identified in the lower courts' judgments.
Access the complete digest by clicking here
Also Read:
Supreme Court Monthly Digest - April