SC Quashes Chargesheet; CCTV Shows Accused Arrived Later, Tried to Pacify Dispute

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N. V. Anjaria heard appeals arising out of a common judgment of the Calcutta High Court that had quashed proceedings against two co-accused but refused similar relief to three others. The appeals by special leave were filed by Sajal Bose and two co-accused, challenging the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506, 509 and 427 IPC arising from FIR No. 150/2022 at Survey Park Police Station.

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court order insofar as appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were concerned, holding that the material on record did not prima facie make out the alleged offences against them. The Court said it had viewed the CCTV footage which formed part of the chargesheet and found that the three appellants were not visible at the scene when the alleged assault occurred and that they reached later and “made efforts to placate the situation.” 

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a cumulative consideration of the allegations in the FIR, the material collected during investigation, and the evidence placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that the present case falls squarely within the illustrative categories (1), (3) and (7) enumerated in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra). Even if the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellants. Further, the uncontroverted material available on record, to be specific, the CCTV footage, completely belies the allegation of their participation in the alleged offences so as to justify their being put to trial. Additionally, the attendant circumstances, particularly the admitted pre-existing disputes between the parties and the absence of specific and distinct overt acts attributed to the appellants, lend substance to their contention that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and have been initiated with an ulterior motive. In such circumstances, permitting the continuation of prosecution of the appellants would not advance the cause of justice but would instead amount to an abuse of the process of law.” The Court thus quashed Charge Sheet No. 135 of 2022 and the proceedings in ACGR No. 4659 of 2022 insofar as they related to the three appellants and disposed of pending applications.

Background

The dispute arose on the night of 11 October 2022 at an apartment complex in Kolkata after an altercation between the complainant, a 77‑year‑old former public prosecutor with a pacemaker, and one Sourav Sen over a damaged main door and a parked scooter. The complainant alleged that several persons assembled, damaged the door, abused and assaulted him and his family, and threatened to ransack the flat. FIR No. 150/2022 was registered on 18 October 2022 and the investigation culminated in Chargesheet No. 135/2022 against eight persons under multiple sections of the IPC, including Section 354. Two co-accused (Nabina Bose and Pampa Joardar) obtained quashing from the High Court, while proceedings were permitted to continue against the present appellants.

The appellants challenged the charges as mala fide, contending that the FIR and chargesheet lacked specific attribution of overt acts to them and that the CCTV footage showed they arrived after the violence and attempted to pacify the parties. The complainant relied on statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, medical records and the CCTV material to support the prosecution's case. This Court recorded that it had stayed trial proceedings as to the appellants while the SLPs were pending, viewed the CCTV footage at the parties’ request, and found the recording did not show the appellants participating in assault; one 164 statement assertion (that a lighter was ignited) was not borne out by the footage. Applying the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and the four‑step test articulated in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court concluded the material relied upon by the appellants was “unimpeachable” and sufficed to negate the accusations. The appeals were allowed and the prosecution as to appellant Nos. 1–3 was quashed; no observation was made on the merits of the case against the other accused. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2026 INSC 322
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 322
Case Title: Sajal Bose v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Counsel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 287