The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an Indian Army soldier who was falsely implicated in a neighborhood property dispute in West Bengal while serving on active duty thousands of miles away in Manipur.
Justice Uday Kumar ruled on August 25 that forcing an active-duty soldier to face a criminal trial based on a demonstrably false police complaint constitutes an unconscionable abuse of the judicial process. Official military records provided by the soldier’s commanding officer confirmed that he was physically present on military duty in Imphal at the exact time of the alleged October 2023 incident in Hooghly.
Fabricated Allegations Amid Property Conflict
The dispute originated from ongoing friction between neighboring families in Hooghly over property rights, drainage, and access to a four-foot common passage. Following civil litigation between the parties, a neighbor lodged a police complaint on December 6, 2023.
The complaint alleged that on October 5, 2023, at 6:30 AM, the soldier, his brother, and unidentified associates physically assaulted the complainant, demanded his sister vacate her property, looted Rs 7,500 in cash, and issued threats.
However, investigators established that the soldier was deployed in Imphal at the time. The High Court observed that it was physically impossible for an individual to occupy two distant geographical locations simultaneously, describing the complaint as a reckless attempt to pressure the brothers into abandoning their civil claims.
Proceedings Retained for Co-Accused
While the court terminated the case against the soldier, it allowed criminal proceedings to continue against his brother, a local resident. The court noted that eyewitness statements and injury reports pointed to a prima facie case involving physical scuffles and wrongful restraint between the neighbors over the disputed passage.
The court also cited procedural flaws in the initial police action, pointing out that although law enforcement omitted the soldier’s name from their final investigation report, he remained listed as a co-petitioner in court filings.
Advocates Gunjan Kumar Singh and Rupsa Maity represented the petitioners. The state was represented by advocates Ramashis Mukherjee and Neel Chakraborty, while advocates Sayan Kanjilal and Kaustav Shome appeared for the complainant.
