The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that where unimpeachable electronic evidence conclusively negates allegations of participation in a criminal act, continuing prosecution amounts to an abuse of process. This judgment underscores the necessity for courts to rigorously evaluate material evidence at the quashing stage, particularly when it undermines the very foundation of the prosecution’s case.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a邻里 conflict between residents of Kanishka Apartment, Janata Road, Alipore, Kolkata. On the night of 11.10.2022, the complainant, Sushil Chakrabarti, a 77-year-old former Public Prosecutor and pacemaker patient, alleged that Sourav Sen and his parents forcibly entered the apartment building, damaged the main door, and engaged in a verbal and physical altercation over the parking of a scooter near electric meter boxes. The situation escalated as multiple residents, including the appellants, arrived at the scene.
Key Facts
- The complainant lodged a written complaint at Police Station Survey Park on 11.10.2022 at approximately 09:20 p.m.
- The complaint was kept in abeyance on the directions of the duty officer until 17.10.2022, when the complainant requested its formalization as an FIR
- FIR No. 150 of 2022 was registered on 18.10.2022 under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427 and 354 IPC against eight accused persons
- The appellants - Sajal Bose (Appellant No.1), Chandidas Joardar (Appellant No.2), and Sautrik Joardar (Appellant No.3) - were named among the accused
- The complainant alleged that the appellants joined the altercation, threatened him, threw sandals at his pacemaker, used a lathi, and attempted to forcibly enter his flat
- A protest petition was filed by the complainant contending that Section 307 IPC was deliberately omitted from the chargesheet
- CCTV footage of the incident was collected during investigation and formed part of the chargesheet
- Medical reports dated 12.10.2022 recorded injuries to the complainant and Dr. Aparajita Bandyopadhyay (his daughter-in-law)
- Dr. Aparajita Bandyopadhyay’s statement under Section 164 CrPC alleged that Appellant No.2 ignited a lighter to burn the complainant
Procedural History
- 11.10.2022: Incident occurred at approximately 09:20 p.m.
- 18.10.2022: FIR No. 150 of 2022 registered at Police Station Survey Park
- 16.12.2022: Chargesheet No. 135 of 2022 filed under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427 and 354 IPC
- 17.12.2022: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, took cognizance and issued summons to all accused
- 08.03.2024: High Court at Calcutta delivered impugned judgment
- Quashed proceedings against Nabina Bose and Pampa Joardar
- Refused to quash proceedings against appellants (Sajal Bose, Chandidas Joardar, Sautrik Joardar)
- 15.07.2024: Supreme Court stayed trial proceedings against appellants pending disposal of SLPs
- 22.07.2024: Stay extended to SLP(Crl) No. 9826 of 2024
- 03.02.2026: Supreme Court invited settlement options
- 17.02.2026: Parties informed Court settlement was not possible
- 06.04.2026: Supreme Court delivered judgment
The Parties' Positions
Appellants (Sajal Bose, Chandidas Joardar, Sautrik Joardar): Contended they were not present during the alleged assault. CCTV footage showed they arrived only after the altercation had begun and attempted to pacify the situation. They argued the chargesheet was filed mechanically, without attribution of specific acts, and that the prosecution was mala fide, motivated by prior personal disputes.
Respondent (Complainant & State): Argued that the appellants actively participated in the assault, including throwing sandals at the pacemaker, using threats, and being part of the unlawful assembly. Relied on Section 164 CrPC statement of Dr. Aparajita Bandyopadhyay and medical reports to substantiate allegations.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of Chargesheet No. 135 of 2022 and ACGR No. 4659 of 2022 insofar as they were concerned, on grounds of abuse of process, lack of prima facie case, and existence of conclusive CCTV evidence disproving their involvement.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash criminal proceedings against the appellants under Section 482 CrPC, despite the presence of uncontroverted CCTV footage that conclusively negated their participation in the alleged offences, and whether such continuation amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Counsel, submitted that the allegations against the appellants were vague, lacked specific attribution of overt acts, and were contradicted by the CCTV footage, which showed them arriving after the incident had commenced and attempting to de-escalate. He argued that the High Court failed to examine this material evidence, violated the principle of parity by quashing proceedings against co-accused while denying it to the appellants, and that the invocation of Section 354 IPC was baseless given the absence of specific allegations of inappropriate touching. He relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh to argue that where credible evidence negates the allegations, quashing is mandatory to prevent abuse of process.
For the Respondent
Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Counsel for the complainant, contended that the High Court had properly appreciated the evidence, including the Section 164 CrPC statement of Dr. Aparajita Bandyopadhyay, which specifically named the appellants and described their acts. He argued that the CCTV footage, while not showing direct assault, did not disprove their presence or threats, and that the complainant’s status as a 77-year-old with a pacemaker rendered the alleged conduct grave. He maintained that factual disputes must be resolved at trial and that the High Court’s decision was neither perverse nor illegal.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook a meticulous review of the CCTV footage, which formed part of the prosecution’s own evidence. The Court observed that the appellants were not visible at the scene during the alleged acts of assault, slapping, kicking, or use of the lathi. Instead, the footage showed them arriving after the altercation had escalated and engaging in gestures of restraint and mediation.
"The visual recording indicates that the appellants made efforts to placate the situation and to dissuade the participants from further escalation of the dispute. The gestures attributed to the appellants are demonstrative of restraint rather than of participation in any act of violence."
The Court emphasized that the absence of any visible act of aggression against the appellants, despite the high-resolution nature of the footage and its centrality to the prosecution’s case, rendered the allegations against them implausible. The Court further noted that the Section 164 CrPC statement, which alleged that Appellant No.2 ignited a lighter to burn the complainant, was directly contradicted by the footage, which showed no such act.
The Court held that the High Court’s failure to analyze this material evidence constituted a grave oversight. The omission was particularly egregious given that the same judgment quashed proceedings against two co-accused on grounds of insufficient attribution of acts, yet denied similar relief to the appellants without any discernible rationale. This differential treatment, without justification, violated the principle of parity.
The Court applied the four-step test laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh: (i) the CCTV footage was of impeccable provenance; (ii) it directly negated the factual assertions against the appellants; (iii) the prosecution offered no credible rebuttal; and (iv) continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of process. The Court concluded that the case fell squarely within categories (1), (3), and (7) of Bhajan Lal, where allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute an offence, and where proceedings are mala fide.
The Verdict
The appeals of appellants Sajal Bose, Chandidas Joardar, and Sautrik Joardar were allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 08.03.2024 and quashed Charge Sheet No. 135 of 2022, filed under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427 and 354 IPC, insofar as it pertains to these three appellants. All pending applications in the trial court were disposed of. The Court held that the continuation of proceedings against them would constitute an abuse of the process of law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
CCTV Evidence Can Defeat Prosecution at Quashing Stage
- Practitioners must insist on judicial viewing of electronic evidence during Section 482 CrPC hearings, especially when it is part of the prosecution’s own record
- Courts cannot dismiss such evidence as "factual disputes" to be resolved at trial if it is unimpeachable and directly contradicts allegations
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to explain why such evidence does not negate the case, not to the accused to prove innocence
Differential Treatment of Co-Accused Is Per Se Arbitrary
- Where co-accused are similarly situated and allegations are identical, courts must provide clear, reasoned justification for differential outcomes
- Failure to do so renders the order arbitrary and violative of Article 14
- Quashing one accused while retaining others without distinction invites appellate interference
Mala Fide Prosecution Based on Personal Disputes Is Not Tolerated
- Criminal law cannot be weaponized to settle civil or residential disputes
- Courts must scrutinize the timing and context of FIR registration, especially when preceded by prior complaints or animosity
- Invocation of serious penal provisions like Section 354 IPC without specific, corroborated allegations invites quashing
