Sajal Bose & Orsv.State of West Bengal & Ors

Legal Analysis: Sajal Bose & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 322
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria (Three‑Judge Bench)
Judgment Author: The judgment is delivered by the Bench collectively (Justice Mehta opens the judgment, but final order signed by all three)
Date of Decision: April 6, 2026
Nature of Judgment: This is a judgment by a Three‑Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its criminal appellate jurisdiction, arising from Special Leave Petitions against a common judgment of the Calcutta High Court.

1. Synopsis of the Judgment

This judgment quashes criminal proceedings against three appellants who were accused of offences including assault, criminal intimidation, and outraging modesty, arising from a neighbour dispute. The High Court had quashed proceedings against two co‑accused but refused similar relief to the appellants. The Supreme Court, after examining the CCTV footage (which was part of the chargesheet), found that the appellants were not present during the alleged assault; they arrived later and attempted to pacify the situation. The Court held that the allegations even if taken at face value did not make out a prima facie case against the appellants, and that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. Applying the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and the four‑step test from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, the Court quashed the chargesheet and proceedings against the appellants.

2. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Sajal Bose vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (with connected appeals)

Criminal Appeal Nos.: Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8672/2024, 8721/2024, 9826/2024

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria

Date of Decision: April 6, 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 322

Appeal From: Common judgment and order dated 08.03.2024 of the High Court at Calcutta in Criminal Revision Nos. 1476/2023 and 2305/2023.

3. Legal Framework

This judgment involves the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – to quash criminal proceedings.

A. Key Provisions of Law:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
  Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860:
  Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427, 354 (various offences including unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint, hurt, criminal intimidation, outraging modesty, etc.)

B. Related Precedents (Discussed in the Judgment):

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: Laid down seven illustrative categories of cases where quashing is permissible, including where allegations do not constitute an offence, are absurd/inherently improbable, or proceedings are malicious.

• Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 9 SCC 603: Laid down a four‑step test for quashing under Section 482, focusing on whether the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling quality, sufficient to negate allegations, unrefuted, and whether continuation would be an abuse of process.

4. Relevant Facts of the Case

1. Incident (11.10.2022): A dispute arose between the complainant (Sushil Chakrabarti, a 77‑year‑old advocate) and one Sourav Sen over a damaged main entrance door. The altercation escalated, and the complainant alleged that he and his family were assaulted by multiple persons.

2. FIR (18.10.2022): FIR No. 150/2022 was registered under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427 IPC against eight accused, including the appellants (Sajal Bose, Chandidas Joardar, Sautrik Joardar) and their spouses.

3. Allegations against Appellants: The FIR alleged that the appellants came downstairs during the incident and threatened the complainant and his family, including asking them to vacate the flat. No specific overt act of physical assault was attributed to them.

4. Chargesheet (16.12.2022): Filed under the same sections plus Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty) against all accused.

5. High Court (08.03.2024): Quashed proceedings against the spouses (Nabina Bose and Pampa Joardar) but refused to quash against the appellants.

6. CCTV Footage: The chargesheet included CCTV footage of the incident. The Supreme Court viewed the footage and found that the appellants were not present during the alleged assault; they arrived later and appeared to be pacifying the situation, not participating in violence.

7. Appeal to Supreme Court: The appellants challenged the High Court’s order.

5. Issues Identified by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants, given that the CCTV footage (forming part of the chargesheet) showed they were not involved in the assault and appeared only later as peacemakers.

2. Whether the allegations against the appellants, even if taken at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences charged, particularly when the High Court had quashed proceedings against similarly placed co‑accused.

3. Whether the continuation of proceedings against the appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

6. Ratio Decidendi (The Reasoning and Decision of the Court)

• CCTV Footage – Sterling Evidence: The Court viewed the CCTV footage that was part of the chargesheet. It found that the appellants were not visible at the scene during the time the alleged assault took place; they arrived later and their gestures demonstrated restraint and efforts to placate, not aggression. This unimpeachable material, collected by the prosecution itself, completely negated the allegations against the appellants. (Paras 27-28)

• Failure of High Court to Consider Crucial Evidence: The High Court’s judgment did not reflect any meaningful analysis of the CCTV footage, despite it being a key piece of evidence. This omission was a serious error. (Para 28)

• Discriminatory Treatment: The High Court quashed proceedings against two co‑accused (the spouses) on the same set of allegations but refused similar relief to the appellants without any cogent reasoning, violating the principle of parity. (Para 29)

• Applicability of Bhajan Lal Categories: The Court held that the case fell under categories (1), (3), and (7) of Bhajan Lal – i.e., the allegations do not constitute an offence, the uncontroverted material does not disclose an offence, and the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide (given prior disputes). (Para 31)

• Four‑Step Test from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani: The Court applied the four‑step test:
  The CCTV footage is of sterling and impeccable quality.
  It rules out the assertions in the chargesheet.
  It has not been refuted by the prosecution.
  Continuing the trial would be an abuse of process.
  All conditions were satisfied, justifying quashing. (Paras 32-34)

• Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the proceedings against the appellants were quashed.

7. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

1. CCTV footage as sterling evidence for quashing: When CCTV footage forming part of the chargesheet clearly exonerates the accused and is of unimpeachable provenance, it can be used at the quashing stage to negate allegations, even without a trial.

2. High Court must consider all material on record: In a quashing petition under Section 482, the High Court cannot ignore material evidence (e.g., CCTV footage) that directly contradicts the prosecution case, merely because the matter is at a preliminary stage.

3. Parity in quashing decisions: If the High Court quashes proceedings against some accused on the ground of lack of specific allegations, it must extend similar relief to other accused who are similarly situated, unless there are clear distinguishing factors.

4. Application of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani test: The four‑step test provides a structured framework for evaluating quashing petitions where the accused relies on documentary or electronic evidence that is part of the prosecution’s own record.

8. The Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• Role of CCTV footage at quashing stage: The Court clarified that while disputed facts are normally left for trial, when the material relied upon by the accused is part of the prosecution’s own case (e.g., CCTV footage collected during investigation) and is clear and unimpeachable, the court can consider it to determine whether a prima facie case exists. This is not a “mini trial” but a legitimate exercise of inherent powers.

• Distinction between appellants and co‑accused: The High Court had quashed proceedings against the spouses because they were not assigned specific overt acts. The same reasoning applied to the appellants, as the FIR did not attribute any specific act of assault to them. The Court found no rational basis for differential treatment.

• Abuse of process: The Court noted that the complainant and the appellants had prior disputes. The absence of any visible act of assault in the CCTV footage, coupled with the vague allegations, indicated that the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted to harass the appellants.

• Rejection of Section 354 allegation: The allegation of outraging modesty (Section 354) was not attributed to the appellants in the original FIR; it appeared later in the statement of Dr. Aparajita Bandyopadhyay, but the CCTV footage did not support it. The Court held that such omnibus allegations, unsupported by evidence, could not sustain a charge.

9. Critical Analysis of the Judgment

• Strength – Correct use of inherent powers: The judgment demonstrates the proper exercise of Section 482 jurisdiction. By relying on uncontroverted CCTV footage, the Court prevented a patently false case from going to trial, saving judicial time and protecting the appellants from harassment.

• Practical guidance: The decision provides a clear template for litigants to seek quashing when there is objective, unimpeachable evidence (e.g., video recordings) that contradicts the prosecution case. It also reminds High Courts to consider all material on record, not just the FIR.

• Addressing the High Court’s error: The Court rightly pointed out that the High Court had failed to analyse the CCTV footage and had given inconsistent treatment to similarly placed accused. This part of the judgment serves as a caution to lower courts.

• Potential critique – Over‑reliance on electronic evidence: One could argue that CCTV footage may not capture everything, and the absence of visible assault does not conclusively prove innocence (e.g., verbal threats or acts outside camera view). However, the Court noted that the appellants’ gestures showed pacification, and the complainant had not alleged any specific act against them in the FIR. The Court’s conclusion was reasonable.

• Impact: The judgment will be cited in quashing petitions where the accused relies on video or documentary evidence that is part of the chargesheet. It also reinforces the principle that quashing is not barred merely because the matter is at the stage of framing of charges.

10. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. It set aside the impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 08.03.2024 insofar as it refused to quash proceedings against the appellants. Consequently, Charge Sheet No. 135 of 2022 arising out of FIR No. 150 of 2022, pending as ACGR No. 4659 of 2022 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, was quashed in respect of appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (Sajal Bose, Chandidas Joardar, Sautrik Joardar). Pending applications were disposed of.

11. Practical Application, Court Lines, and Legal Strategy

Use in Court (Practical Application)

1. To quash criminal proceedings when the accused has reliable, uncontroverted evidence (e.g., CCTV footage, call recordings, GPS data) forming part of the prosecution’s own record that clearly negates the allegations. Cite the four‑step test from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani.

2. To challenge differential treatment where the High Court quashes proceedings against some co‑accused but refuses similar relief to others without cogent reasons. Argue violation of parity and arbitrariness.

3. To argue that the High Court must consider all material on record at the quashing stage, not just the FIR. If the High Court ignores crucial evidence, the Supreme Court will intervene.

Court Lines

• “Upon a careful and comprehensive examination of the said footage, it emerges that the appellants are not visible at the scene during the relevant time when the alleged acts of assault are stated to have taken place. … The visual recording indicates that the appellants made efforts to placate the situation and to dissuade the participants from further escalation of the dispute.” (Para 27)

• “The omission to advert to and evaluate this crucial aspect indicates that the matter was not examined with the degree of scrutiny warranted in proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC.” (Para 28)

• “In our considered opinion, the present case falls squarely within the illustrative categories (1), (3) and (7) enumerated in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra).” (Para 31)

• “Where the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality; is sufficient to negate the allegations in the complaint; remains unrefuted … and where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court … the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers to quash the proceedings.” (Para 32, quoting Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani)

Legal Strategy Insight

• For the accused (defence): If you have clear electronic or documentary evidence (e.g., CCTV, WhatsApp chats, GPS location) that forms part of the police investigation (e.g., collected under Section 161 CrPC or part of chargesheet), file a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC. Annex the evidence and argue that it is “sterling and impeccable” under the Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani test. Emphasise that the prosecution cannot refute it, and continuing the trial would be an abuse of process.

• For the complainant (prosecution): To resist such a quashing petition, you must demonstrate that the evidence relied upon by the accused is disputed, incomplete, or capable of multiple interpretations. If the accused relies on CCTV footage, argue that it may not capture the entire incident or that the accused could have been involved outside the camera frame. Obtain expert analysis if needed.

• For the High Court: When dealing with quashing petitions, always examine the entire material on record, including any electronic evidence. If the evidence clearly exonerates the accused, quash the proceedings; do not merely say “matters of fact are for trial.” Use the structured four‑step test to avoid arbitrary decisions. Ensure parity in treatment of co‑accused.