Insufficient Evidence Leads to Dismissal of Defamation, Abuse, and Threat Charges
In a significant judgment delivered on February 24, 2026, the Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Avijit Singha Roy, who was accused of defamation, abuse, psychological trauma, and threats under Sections 500, 504, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, presided over by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, found the allegations against the petitioner to be unsubstantiated, citing a lack of prima facie evidence and essential ingredients necessary to establish the alleged offenses.
The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by the daughter of Swapan Kumar Singha Roy, who accused Avijit Singha Roy, her cousin, of continuous abuse, psychological trauma, and physical threats, attributing these acts to a longstanding family property dispute. The complaint alleged that Avijit Singha Roy, employed at Hewlett Packard Enterprise India Private Limited, engaged in verbal abuse, defamation, and threats, creating an environment of fear for her and her unborn child.
Advocates for Avijit Singha Roy, including Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee and Mr. Soumyadeep Nag, argued that the complaint was retaliatory, linked to ongoing civil litigation between the parties. They contended that the complaint lacked specific details such as dates, times, or any derogatory words, thus failing to substantiate the charges. They also highlighted the civil nature of the underlying dispute, which involved a pending partition suit and a money suit claiming damages for defamation.
The court examined the complaint and the investigation report, noting the absence of specific allegations, dates, or evidence necessary to meet the criteria under Sections 500 (defamation), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (insulting modesty of a woman) of the IPC. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das emphasized that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised to prevent abuse of the court process and to secure the ends of justice.
The judgment referred to previous Supreme Court rulings, underscoring that the High Court should not delve into evaluating evidence or determining its reliability, a responsibility reserved for the trial court. The ruling drew upon cases such as Kamala Devi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal and Swami Brahmatmananda v. Dr. Alok Kumar Maiti, affirming the principles that mere pendency of civil suits does not justify criminal proceedings in the absence of clear criminal intent.
In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court's decision to quash the proceedings reflects a careful application of legal principles, ensuring that criminal law is not misused to settle civil disputes. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of a clear prima facie case to sustain criminal charges, safeguarding individuals from unwarranted legal harassment.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 500, 504, 506, and 509 IPC on grounds of lack of evidence and prima facie ingredients of the alleged offences.
Statutory provision(s):
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 500, 504, 506, 509
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 482
Avijit Singha Roy v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857837
