The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor after determining that the complaint against him was based on an allegation of threat made in 2018 by an accused person who had died in 2010.
The court was hearing a revision petition filed by Dr. Gour Das seeking to quash a criminal complaint filed against him and others. The complaint alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 471, 120B, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a registered Deed of Trust executed on August 18, 2010, concerning property at Ballygunge, Kolkata.
The complainant, who is the niece of the original property owner, alleged that the trust deed had been procured through fraud and manipulation to unlawfully acquire the property. She further alleged that on May 7, 2018, the accused persons had threatened her uncle with dire consequences if he took legal steps to revoke the trust deed.
However, the Court noted that one of the accused, Dr. Tapash Kumar Banerjee, had died on September 22, 2010—nearly eight years before the date of the alleged threat. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed that attributing a threat made in 2018 to a person who had died in 2010 was 'not merely improbable but impossible on its face'.
The Court held that even if the allegation of threat were accepted in its entirety, it could not disclose the commission of any offence by the deceased accused, as a dead person cannot be held criminally liable for an act purportedly committed after their death.
The Court further noted that the complainant had not disclosed the death of the accused while recording her statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate. Additionally, the Magistrate had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under Section 202 CrPC before issuing summons to the petitioner, who resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Another significant factor highlighted by the Court was the pendency of a civil suit concerning the same dispute before the Alipore Civil Court. The High Court observed that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that criminal proceedings had been initiated as a parallel means to exert pressure on the petitioner.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the case fell within Categories (1), (5), (6) and (7) of the illustrative circumstances warranting the exercise of the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.
The Court concluded that the criminal proceeding was 'a civil dispute clothed in the garb of criminality' and that its continuation would constitute a gross abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed, and the criminal complaint was quashed insofar as the petitioner, Dr. Gour Das, was concerned.
The case is recorded as Dr. Gour Das v. Bhabani Bhattacharjee, CRR No. 3700 of 2018.