Calcutta HC Quashes FIR Against Army Soldier Whose Military Alibi Was Certified by His Commanding Officer
Justice Uday Kumar quashed proceedings against a Territorial Army soldier stationed in Imphal, certified absent on the date of the alleged Hooghly assault, while allowing trial to continue against his co-petitioner brother.
The High Court at Calcutta has quashed the criminal prosecution against Arun Prasad, a serving soldier of the Territorial Army, after his Commanding Officer officially certified that he was on active military duty in Imphal, Manipur, on the exact date and time he was alleged to have participated in an assault at Saradapally, Hooghly. Justice Uday Kumar, sitting singly, allowed the criminal revision petition in part, holding that when the investigating agency itself concedes the physical impossibility of an accused's presence and drops him via a Final Report, maintaining criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of process. The prayer for quashing proceedings against Arun Prasad's brother, Dr. Arjun Prasad — who was locally present — was rejected, and the trial against him before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Serampore was directed to proceed.
A Neighbourhood Boundary Dispute That Turned Criminal
The dispute at the centre of this matter concerns a four-foot common passage and drainage easement rights at Saradapally, Sector-II, Makhla, Hooghly (Dag No. 1676/2553, Khatian No. 494, Mouza Makhla). The Prasad family and their neighbour, Soumitra Sankar Mukherjee (Opposite Party No. 2), had been in sustained conflict over alleged illegal constructions and obstruction of the common passage.
Before the criminal case was registered, the Prasad family had filed Title Suit No. 470 of 2023 before the First Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Serampore, seeking declarations and permanent and mandatory injunctions over the passage. The civil friction had already produced a police entry — Uttarpara P.S. GDE No. 1042 dated July 26, 2023, recording threats and physical intimidation — and had attracted preventive proceedings under Section 144(2) CrPC.
Mukherjee then moved a private complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC. This culminated in the registration of Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 445 of 2023 on December 6, 2023. The allegation was that on October 5, 2023, at 6:30 AM, both Arun Prasad and Dr. Arjun Prasad, along with unknown associates, intercepted Mukherjee near Satadol Club, physically assaulted him, demanded that his sister vacate her property, looted cash of Rs. 7,500/-, and issued dire threats. A chargesheet was filed under Sections 341, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3095 of 2023.
The Fatal Contradiction: Soldier Certified Present in Imphal
The prosecution's account unravelled at the investigation stage itself. Arun Prasad is a serving soldier attached to B-Company, 25, BRTE, Imphal, Manipur. Upon verification, the Commanding Officer of that unit officially certified that Arun Prasad was on active military duty in Imphal on October 5, 2023, the exact date and time of the alleged incident in Hooghly.
Faced with this irrefutable record, the investigating officer submitted a Final Report (FRT) concerning Arun Prasad, effectively dropping and discharging him from the accusations. Yet, in the same exercise, the investigating officer submitted a chargesheet against Dr. Arjun Prasad alone. The two petitioners then filed CRR 2356 of 2024 before the High Court at Calcutta, seeking quashing of the FIR and the chargesheet in their entirety.
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gunjan Kumar Singh, argued that the entire proceeding was a mala fide, retaliatory counterblast engineered to pressure the Prasads into withdrawing their civil suit. He placed particular stress on the Final Report as proof that the foundational allegation of joint participation had collapsed, and relied on the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) concerning proceedings attended with mala fides and instituted to wreak vengeance.
The State, represented by Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee, raised a maintainability objection — Arun Prasad had already been dropped from the chargesheet yet was arrayed as a petitioner — and submitted that Section 161 CrPC statements of independent witnesses and injury reports disclosed a prima facie case of wrongful restraint and assault against Dr. Arjun Prasad. The State argued that defences such as alibi and the existence of a civil dispute are matters for the trial court and cannot justify quashing at the threshold. Mr. Sayan Kanjilal, for Mukherjee, supported that position and noted that a Section 41A CrPC notice, separately challenged in WPA No. 3877 of 2024 before this Court, had no direct bearing on the criminal trial.
How the Court Reasoned the Dichotomy Between the Two Petitioners
Justice Uday Kumar framed two core questions: first, whether proceedings against Arun Prasad, already discharged via a Final Report on the strength of an irrefutable military alibi, constituted an abuse of process; and second, whether a prima facie case warranting trial had been established against Dr. Arjun Prasad.
On the first question, the Court drew a sharp distinction between an ordinary plea of alibi — a factual matter ordinarily left for trial — and an alibi resting on an officially authenticated state and military record. The Court held that when the prosecuting agency itself verifies and concedes the physical impossibility of an accused's presence at the crime scene, “the principle against evaluating defences at the threshold ceases to apply, as the foundational charge stands legally demolished.” Applying the first and third categories of the Bhajan Lal parameters, the Court concluded that the prosecution against Arun Prasad was a malicious and absurd proceeding that could not be permitted to stand.
The Court acknowledged that the opposite parties' reliance on the same Bhajan Lal authority — to the effect that where a prima facie case is disclosed, interference at the threshold is unwarranted — was not without basis in general law. However, it held those propositions inapplicable where the police themselves had conceded the impossibility and filed a Final Report. Compelling a serving soldier to endure a criminal trial based on a demonstrably false report was described as an unconscionable abuse of the judicial process.
The Court also noted the procedural anomaly that Arun Prasad continued to be arrayed as a co-petitioner despite having been dropped by the police, describing this as a feature that highlighted the fatal defect in the initial action of roping him into the prosecution.
On the second question, Justice Uday Kumar's reasoning shifted. Dr. Arjun Prasad was locally resident and available at the locale on October 5, 2023. The case diary contained Section 161 CrPC statements of eyewitnesses and injury reports that prima facie spoke of a scuffle and neighbourhood friction arising from the disputed common passage. The Court applied Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2009) 8 SCC 751] for the proposition that the existence of a civil dispute does not bar a criminal prosecution if independent criminal ingredients are made out. The independent ingredients of wrongful restraint and simple hurt were held to be disclosed from the investigative materials.
The Court held that the truth or falsity of the eyewitness accounts, the exact nature of the altercation, and the counter-allegations raised by the defence involved disputed questions of fact that “cannot be short-circuited or weighed by this Court in a revisional application under Section 482 CrPC.” Those factual controversies had to be resolved through regular trial.
Outcome
By order dated August 25, 2026, Justice Uday Kumar allowed CRR 2356 of 2024 in part. The criminal proceedings arising from Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 445 of 2023 dated December 6, 2023, along with Chargesheet No. 20 of 2024 dated January 31, 2024 (G.R. Case No. 3095 of 2023), were quashed and set aside exclusively in respect of Petitioner No. 1, Arun Prasad, taking formal cognizance of the Final Report by which the investigating agency had already discharged him.
The prayer to quash proceedings against Dr. Arjun Prasad was rejected. The trial against him before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Serampore was directed to proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations in the judgment on the merits. The Trial Court was further directed to proceed expeditiously, ensuring that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics.
All interim orders passed in the revisional proceeding were vacated. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of. No order as to costs was made. A copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Serampore, Hooghly, along with the trial court records.