Md. Obaidullah v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

prima facie materials disclosed in the FIR. It is specifically submitted by the State that parallel proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) are currently pending between the parties. The existence of a 4 Domestic Incident Report (DIR) and the ongoing nature of the DV proceedings serve as a significant indicator that the alleged torture and matrimonial cruelty are not isolated incidents but represent a continuing course of conduct. The State contends that the pendency of these statutory proceedings reinforces the credibility of the complainant's allegations of subsisting abuse, thereby necessitating a full-scale trial to ensure the safety and dignity of the victim.

#7. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, as articulated in the landmark ratio of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and reinforced in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, that the power to quash an FIR or a criminal proceeding must be exercised with the utmost circumspection and only in the "rarest of rare cases." This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, is not permitted to embark upon an inquiry into the reliability, genuineness, or inherent probability of the allegations. To weigh the evidence at this premature stage or to assess the truthfulness of the complainant's statement would be tantamount to conducting a "mini-trial" before the actual trial has commenced. The law is clear: if the allegations in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offense, the 5 Court has no authority to interfere or stifle the investigation. The requirement of the Bhajjan Singh/Bhajan Lal standards for quashing has not been met, as the complaint is neither vexatious nor legally untenable on its face.

#8. Furthermore, the gravity of the offenses alleged, specifically Section 376 (Rape) and Section 308 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide), involves complex questions of fact and intent that can only be resolved through the rigors of a full trial. This Court cannot "throttle the prosecution at the threshold" when the materials on record suggest a prima facie case of extreme physical and sexual violence. The determination of whether the alleged sexual acts were consensual or forceful, or whether the injuries inflicted constitute an attempt to commit culpable homicide, are matters of evidence to be tested via cross-examination in the Trial Court. Exercising revisional jurisdiction to quash such serious charges would result in a miscarriage of justice and would deprive the victim of her right to a fair trial. Consequently, the application does not merit the intervention of this Court.

#9. In view of the exhaustive facts and the settled legal position, this Court finds that there are sufficient and compelling grounds for the trial to proceed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda. 6 The allegations are not merely matrimonial discord but involve grave criminal culpability that cannot be ignored at this stage.

#10. Accordingly, the revisional application dismissed. All interim orders, including any stay on the investigation or trial proceedings, stand vacated with immediate effect.

#11. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda, and the Inspector-in-Charge, Kaliachak Police Station, for immediate compliance and for inclusion in the Case Diary.

#12. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Uday Kumar, J.)