The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings against a Central Government employee, holding that a voluminous chargesheet cannot justify criminal prosecution if it fails to level specific allegations against the accused. A bench comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside an order of the High Court that had dismissed the employee’s petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, observing that there was no justification to permit the continuance of the criminal case against him.
Background of the Case
The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by a practicing advocate (the second respondent) against her client (the third respondent), alleging non-payment of legal fees amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-. According to the First Information Statement, the appellant—a Central Government employee—acted in aid of his friend (the client) by telephoning the advocate and threatening her to withdraw her demand for fees.
The advocate further alleged that on April 29, 2023, at approximately 08:30 pm, her client and an associate ransacked her office, assaulted her, and stole cash and mobile phones. Based on her complaint, FIR No. 78 of 2023 was registered on May 4, 2023, at Howrah Police Station under Sections 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Following an investigation, the police filed Chargesheet No. 191 of 2023 on October 31, 2023. The appellant approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR and chargesheet, but the High Court dismissed the application, directing him to seek remedies before the jurisdictional trial court since the chargesheet had already been filed. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Counsel Sri S.B. Upadhyay, appearing for the appellant, contended that no case was made out against the appellant from a reading of the FIR and the chargesheet, and that the appellant, being a Central Government employee, was unnecessarily dragged into the matter.
The second respondent appeared in person and requested that the proceedings be conducted in-camera, which was permitted by the Supreme Court. During her oral arguments, she raised general submissions regarding difficulties encountered in her legal profession and made allegations against the appellant’s wife, who is a practicing advocate in Calcutta. However, the court noted that she did not touch upon the allegations raised against the appellant himself.
Court’s Analysis
Upon examining the records, the Supreme Court noted that although heinous acts were alleged to have occurred on April 29, 2023, the advocate filed the FIR only on May 4, 2023, despite being a practicing lawyer.
Reviewing the chargesheet, the bench noted that the police investigation was directed primarily against the third respondent (the client). The court observed that the chargesheet is “voluminous but does not level any specific allegation against the appellant herein.”
The bench pointed out that after finding several offences established against the client, “abruptly it is stated that prima facie charge under Sections 506 and 509 read with Section 34 IPC is well established against the other two accused persons i.e., the appellant herein and 4th respondent, father of the 3rd respondent, who is said to be an aged man.”
After scrutinizing the FIR and the chargesheet, the bench held: “Having gone through the FIR and the chargesheet, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no reason to permit the continuance of the proceedings against the appellant herein.”
Decision
The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed the appeal. The court ordered that the proceedings initiated pursuant to FIR No. 78 of 2023 dated May 4, 2023, at Howrah Police Station, leading to Chargesheet No. 191 of 2023 dated October 31, 2023, stand set aside and quashed with respect to the appellant. The bench directed that no criminal proceedings shall be continued against the appellant pursuant to the chargesheet.
Case Title: Kanad Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.3892 of 2026
Bench: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: August 17, 2026
