KOLKATA: <\/em>The Calcutta High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee<\/strong>, quashed a criminal case<\/strong> filed against a father who was accused of assaulting his minor son during a court-approved visitation meeting<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held that the allegations were contradictory, unsupported by independent evidence<\/strong>, and appeared to be part of an ongoing matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case was filed by the wife after an incident that allegedly took place on March 1, 2025, inside the Burdwan Court premises. The husband had earlier received visitation rights<\/strong> to meet his six-year-old son under an order passed in a guardianship case<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the complaint, the child said he was feeling sleepy during the meeting, after which the father allegedly became angry, dragged the child down the staircase, and later threw a tennis ball <\/strong>at him, causing injury. The wife also claimed that she was pushed during the incident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband challenged the FIR before the High Court and argued that the allegations were false and made only to stop him from meeting his child<\/strong>. He told the Court that the wife had already filed several cases against him and was trying to break the bond between the father and son<\/strong>. He also pointed out that there were major contradictions<\/strong> between the wife\u2019s application filed before the District Judge and the later FIR based on the same incident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court carefully examined the FIR, witness statements, medical papers, and the application filed before the District Court. It noticed that the versions given in different documents were not consistent<\/strong> with each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also observed that only two witnesses supported the prosecution<\/strong> \u2014 the complainant\u2019s father, who was not present at the spot, and the complainant\u2019s lawyer who had earlier appeared in court seeking suspension of the father\u2019s visitation rights. No independent witness from<\/strong> the crowded court premises was produced by the prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While discussing the offences alleged against the father, the Court explained that criminal intention is an essential requirement in such cases. The Court found no material showing that the father had any intention to harm his own child. Justice Mukherjee observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe entire allegation even if accepted in toto, at best suggests a momentary reaction during an emotionally charged visitation, which by no stretch of imagination can be equated with the requisite criminal intent.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court further stated that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe allegations made by the complainant in different places are not only contradictory but also vague, omnibus and devoid of particulars necessary to constitute cognizable offence.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also raised concern over the three-day delay in filing the FIR<\/strong> and noted that the delay had not been properly explained. According to the Court, there were reasons to believe that sufficient time was taken \u201cto deliberate and embellish the story before setting the criminal law in motion.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Relying on the famous Supreme Court judgment in Bhajanlal v. State of Haryana<\/em><\/strong>, the High Court said criminal proceedings can be quashed when allegations are absurd, malicious, or fail to disclose any offence. Justice Mukherjee strongly remarked that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is wholly unnatural and against human conduct that a father, during a court sanctioned visitation, would deliberately assault his own minor child.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further referred to the Supreme Court decision in Hazi Iqbal Md. Vs. State of UP<\/em><\/strong> and observed that false criminal allegations arising out of personal vengeance can seriously damage the life and reputation of an accused person. The judgment noted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cGeneral omnibus and frivolous allegation, if left unchecked, would not only result in misuse of the process of law but a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal would inflict severe scars upon the accused.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Court concluded that continuing the criminal case would be nothing but an abuse of the legal process<\/strong>. The criminal proceedings pending before the Burdwan Judicial Magistrate Court were therefore quashed<\/strong> by the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How It Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 126(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita<\/a> (BNS), 2023<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for wrongful restraint \u2014 stopping someone from going where they legally have a right to go<\/td> Police alleged the father wrongfully restrained or dragged the child<\/td><\/tr> Section 115(2), BNS, 2023<\/strong><\/td> Voluntarily causing hurt<\/td> Allegation that the father caused injury by throwing a tennis ball<\/td><\/tr> Section 352, BNS, 2023<\/strong><\/td> Intentional insult intended to provoke breach of peace<\/td> Allegation that the complainant was abused and insulted<\/td><\/tr> Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act<\/a>, 1890<\/strong><\/td> Custody and visitation rights relating to children<\/td> Father had obtained visitation rights through this provision<\/td><\/tr> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Law protecting women from domestic violence<\/td> Separate proceedings between husband and wife were already pending<\/td><\/tr> Section 74(1)(iii), Indian Evidence Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Public documents issued by government authorities<\/td> Used to argue that hospital injury report carried legal value<\/td><\/tr> Section 119, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)<\/strong><\/td> Presumption regarding official acts being properly done<\/td> Relied upon regarding medical documents<\/td><\/tr> Section 134, Indian Evidence Act<\/strong><\/td> Quality of evidence matters more than quantity<\/td> Used by complainant to defend limited witnesses<\/td><\/tr> Section 161 Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> Statements recorded by police during investigation<\/td> Witness statements were examined by the High Court<\/td><\/tr> Section 482 Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> High Court\u2019s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings<\/td> Basis for seeking quashing of FIR and proceedings<\/td><\/tr> Section 156(1) Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> Police power to investigate cognizable offences<\/td> Discussed in Bhajanlal guidelines<\/td><\/tr> Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> Magistrate permission needed for non-cognizable offences<\/td> Mentioned in Supreme Court<\/a> guidelines for quashing<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n