SAJAL BOSE versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

SAJAL BOSE versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

The appeals were allowed and the chargesheet as to appellant Nos.1,2 and 3 was quashed because the FIR and material, when read with the uncontroverted CCTV footage collected during investigation, do not prima facie disclose offences against these appellants; the footage shows they were not present during the alleged assault and only sought to pacify matters; the allegations are vague and the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide, satisfying the Bhajan Lal categories and the four-step test in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, thereby justifying exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash.

Parties
Appellant: Sajal Bose; Appellant: Nabina Bose; Appellant: Chandidas Joardar; Appellant: Sautrik Joardar; Appellant: Pampa Joardar; Respondent: State of West Bengal; Complainant / Respondent: Sushil Chakrabarti
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (special Leave) / Appeal Against High Court Order Quashing Proceedings in Part; Judgment of Supreme Court on Merits
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Quashing of Proceedings, Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court (section 482 Cr PC / Section 528 BNS 2023), Electronic Evidence (cctv), Malafide Prosecution, Parity Among Co Accused
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Constitutional Law Quashing of Proceedings Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court (section 482 Cr PC / Section 528 BNS 2023) Electronic Evidence (cctv) Malafide Prosecution Parity Among Co Accused

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sajal Bose

Appellant

Nabina Bose

Appellant

Chandidas Joardar

Appellant

Sautrik Joardar

Appellant

Pampa Joardar

Appellant

State of West Bengal

Respondent

Sushil Chakrabarti

Complainant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (special Leave) / Appeal Against High Court Order Quashing Proceedings in Part; Judgment of Supreme Court on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in declining to quash proceedings against appellants while quashing proceedings against two co-accused
  2. 2 Whether allegations in the FIR and material collected, including CCTV footage, prima facie disclose offences against the appellants
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution was malicious or attended with mala fide/ulterior motive

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were allowed and the chargesheet as to appellant Nos.1,2 and 3 was quashed because the FIR and material, when read with the uncontroverted CCTV footage collected during investigation, do not prima facie disclose offences against these appellants; the footage shows they were not present during the alleged assault and only sought to pacify matters; the allegations are vague and the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide, satisfying the Bhajan Lal categories and the four-step test in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, thereby justifying exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court judgment and order dated 8 March 2024 set aside insofar as it declined to quash proceedings against appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3
  • Appeals preferred by appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are allowed